On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 01:15:45AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 8/7/25 10:11 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 09:41:34PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > On 8/7/25 6:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > On 8/7/25 12:24 PM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote: > > > > > > CONFIG_HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT is obsolete, if we interpret the value > > > > > > "zero" as "unlimited". > > > > > > > > > > This sentence makes no sense. Is the variable not obsolete if its > > > > > value is > > > > > non-zero ? > > > > > > > > This is phrased oddly, yes. How about: > > > > By making the code treat a size limit of 0 as unlimited we no longer > > > > need to guard asking about having a size limit on the platform. > > > > > > 0 shouldn't mean unlimited, that is just fragile ... > > > > That's a standard unix thing? ulimit -c 0 is unlimited. > > This is a really bad argument, because then the counter-argument is, that > size = 0 is also a valid size and it shouldn't be conflated with SIZE_LIMIT > validity. > > My take on this is, don't conflate size-limit "enabled/disabled" with > size-limit "value" , these are two separate config options. Mixing them is > not helping.
I still think it's fine, but it's not worth arguing further over, and we can just make sure to gate all of the symbols rather than 0-is-disabled. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
