Re: [PATCH 00/10] Fix confusion around MAX_ORDER

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 9/28/23 09:50, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > Fix the bugs and then change the definition of MAX_ORDER to be
> > > inclusive: the range of orders user can ask from buddy allocator is
> > > 0..MAX_ORDER now.
> I think that exclusive MAX_ORDER is more intuitive in the C language -
> i.e. if you write "for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; i++)", you are supposed to
> loop over all allowed values. If you declare an array "void
> *array[MAX_ORDER];" you are supposed to hold a value for each allowed
> order.
>
> Pascal has for loops and array dimensions with inclusive ranges - and it
> is more prone to off-by-one errors.

I agree it's somewhat confusing either way but the ship has sailed, the 
patch has been included in Linux for several months.

Paolo