12 Mar 2026 21:28:11 Andrew Morton <[email protected]>: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 21:09:52 +0000 Josh Law <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> That's a fair point, Steve. Given that brace_index isn't touched elsewhere >>> and the current check effectively prevents the overflow, I agree this isn't >>> strictly necessary. I'll drop this patch and stick with the fix for the >>> off-by-one reporting error instead. Thanks for the feedback! >> >> Wait Steve, >> Thanks for the look. I see your point that it's currently redundant given >> the call patterns. It looks like Andrew has already merged this into the -mm >> tree, likely as a 'belt-and-suspenders' safety measure. I'll keep your >> feedback in mind for future cleanup, but I'm glad we got the other >> off-by-one fix in as well! > > Please wordwrap the emails. > >> And in my opinion, merging it is a decent idea. > > You've changed your position without explaining why?
Sorry, I think it should be merged because it's better to be safe than sorry, I know there is different methods of implementation, but this one still works... I know it's churn (and I'm sorry)
