>>> On 21.03.16 at 15:22, wrote:
> Or to take a different tack: I understand that you don't think there's
> no particular benefit to adding a comment in cases like this; could
> you explain to me why you think it would have a significant cost?
There's no significant cost here. Yet I do think that
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.03.16 at 13:04, wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Ian Jackson
>> wrote:
>>> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH v4 08/34] vmap: Make the while loop
>>> less fishy."):
error:
-while ( i-- )
-f
>>> On 21.03.16 at 13:04, wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH v4 08/34] vmap: Make the while loop
>> less fishy."):
>>> error:
>>> -while ( i-- )
>>> -free_domheap_page(mfn_to_page(mfn_x(mfn[i])));
>>> +while
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH v4 08/34] vmap: Make the while loop
> less fishy."):
>> error:
>> -while ( i-- )
>> -free_domheap_page(mfn_to_page(mfn_x(mfn[i])));
>> +while ( i )
>> +free_domheap_page(mfn_to_pa
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("[PATCH v4 08/34] vmap: Make the while loop less
fishy."):
> error:
> -while ( i-- )
> -free_domheap_page(mfn_to_page(mfn_x(mfn[i])));
> +while ( i )
> +free_domheap_page(mfn_to_page(mfn_x(mfn[--i])));
I quite strongly dislike this. It is g
>>> On 17.03.16 at 15:37, wrote:
> On 17/03/16 11:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.03.16 at 20:33, wrote:
>>> On 15/03/16 17:56, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
It looks like it could underflow at first glance. That is
if i is zero and you get in the while loop with the
i--. However
>>> On 15.03.16 at 20:33, wrote:
> On 15/03/16 17:56, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> It looks like it could underflow at first glance. That is
>> if i is zero and you get in the while loop with the
>> i--. However the postfix expression is evaluated after the
>> conditional so the loop is fine an
On 17/03/16 11:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.03.16 at 20:33, wrote:
>> On 15/03/16 17:56, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> It looks like it could underflow at first glance. That is
>>> if i is zero and you get in the while loop with the
>>> i--. However the postfix expression is evaluated afte
>>> On 15.03.16 at 18:56, wrote:
> It looks like it could underflow at first glance. That is
> if i is zero and you get in the while loop with the
> i--. However the postfix expression is evaluated after the
> conditional so the loop is fine and won't execute (with i==0).
I don't think this is th
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 08/34] vmap: Make the while loop
less fishy."):
> On 17.03.16 at 15:37, wrote:
> > 213 error:
> > CID 63648: Overflowed constant (INTEGER_OVERFLOW)
> > 7. overflow_const: Decrement (--) operation ov
On 15/03/16 17:56, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> It looks like it could underflow at first glance. That is
> if i is zero and you get in the while loop with the
> i--. However the postfix expression is evaluated after the
> conditional so the loop is fine and won't execute (with i==0).
>
> However
It looks like it could underflow at first glance. That is
if i is zero and you get in the while loop with the
i--. However the postfix expression is evaluated after the
conditional so the loop is fine and won't execute (with i==0).
However in spirit of defense programming lets clarify
the loop con
12 matches
Mail list logo
