| Message ID | 20240822133908.1042240-8-lizetao1@huawei.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | a18308623ce303a0f8954294f3877b3ece8c5e7b |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Some modifications to optimize code readability | expand |
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:39:07PM +0800, Li Zetao wrote: > When calculating size of own domain based on number of peers, the result > should be less than MAX_MON_DOMAIN, so using min() here is very semantic. > > Signed-off-by: Li Zetao <lizetao1@huawei.com> > --- > net/tipc/monitor.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/tipc/monitor.c b/net/tipc/monitor.c > index 77a3d016cade..e2f19627e43d 100644 > --- a/net/tipc/monitor.c > +++ b/net/tipc/monitor.c > @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static int dom_size(int peers) > > while ((i * i) < peers) > i++; > - return i < MAX_MON_DOMAIN ? i : MAX_MON_DOMAIN; > + return min(i, MAX_MON_DOMAIN); > } Perhaps this whole function is open coding something, but if so I couldn't find it. In any case this looks safe to me as i is an unsigned int while MAX_MON_DOMAIN is 64 (also an unsigned int, I believe). And the code being replaced appears to be a min() operation in both form and function. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> > > static void map_set(u64 *up_map, int i, unsigned int v) > -- > 2.34.1 > >
diff --git a/net/tipc/monitor.c b/net/tipc/monitor.c index 77a3d016cade..e2f19627e43d 100644 --- a/net/tipc/monitor.c +++ b/net/tipc/monitor.c @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static int dom_size(int peers) while ((i * i) < peers) i++; - return i < MAX_MON_DOMAIN ? i : MAX_MON_DOMAIN; + return min(i, MAX_MON_DOMAIN); } static void map_set(u64 *up_map, int i, unsigned int v)
When calculating size of own domain based on number of peers, the result should be less than MAX_MON_DOMAIN, so using min() here is very semantic. Signed-off-by: Li Zetao <lizetao1@huawei.com> --- net/tipc/monitor.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)