On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:04 PM Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:25:43AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > > If you want to go that far, you can choose to use lib/bsearch.c too in > > case you want to reinvent the wheel. > > Well, that doesn't give me the @to functionality which points to the > slot where the new element should be inserted, when the search was > unsuccessful.
No one stops you from adding it, as you are going far you can always go further. :) > > > What's your point here? > > My point is to fix it properly. Obviously. Of course, no one can stop you from rewriting the whole ras code by doing it properly. > > > You know my fix is targeted for -stable, > > Well, first you sent me this: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190416012001.5338-1-xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com > > then this: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190416213351.28999-1-xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com Yes, one is V1 and the other is V2. Is it hard to understand V2 is to replace V1? > > Tony liked this second version more and if you look at the final result of > mine: Sorry, I have no reason to look into a 83-line change. > it has basically *both*: the correct [min:max] range *and* the return of > ithe ndex when found. But the algorithm this time is the correct one. I don't review it, so I don't know. Feel free to believe you are correct here, until someone finds a bug later. > > > I doubt your 83-line change could fit for -stable. > > My 83-line change has debug output only for experimentation. It will, > *of* *course* be removed before committing it upstream. That's why I > called it "a conglomerate patch" and I said "It has some debug output > for easier debugging, that will be removed in the final version, of > course." I guess you didn't read that either. Why should I read a debugging patch? > > And the sanity_check() piece will be a separate patch, of course. > > In the end the diffstat will be 30-40 lines max. > > > Feel free to drop my patch to favor yours. I am really tired. > > Suit yourself. Thanks for the reporting. There is no bug here, your code is perfect. :) Sorry for wasting your time to believe this it is bug, it is not. :-) Thanks.
