> For example, let's look at this perfectly natural code:
>
> static int unix_mkname(struct sockaddr_un * sunaddr, int len, unsigned *hashp)
> {
> if (len <= sizeof(short) || len > sizeof(*sunaddr))
> return -EINVAL;
> ...
>
> Would you agree that the above is _good_ code, and code that makes
> perfect sense, and code that does exactly the right thing in testing its
> arguments?
Wouldn't it have made more sense to make the 'len' parameter an unsigned int?
Presumably we can't have a negative length for a name. In this case the
warnings should just go away, no?
-- Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/