On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 21:30:10 +0000 Josh Law <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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) I would like to keep this original >= because it is safer. Andrew, I will pick these patches with my test patch. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>
