Re: [PATCH next v4 0/5] minmax: Relax type checks in min() and max().

[Dan Carpenter]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:16:00PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter
> > Sent: 12 January 2024 09:13
> > 
> > I've often wondered why so many people use min_t(int, size, limit) when
> > they really do not want negative sizes...  Is there a performance reason?
> > git grep 'min_t(int,' says there are 872 instances of this.  Probably
> > some do want negatives but it's a quite small percent.
> 
> But you really don't a negative 'size' converted to a large
> unsigned value above the limit - that would be worse.
> All the type checking is there to stop that happening.
> 

I understand your changes, it seems like a really nice API.  I was just
asking about min_t(int, in old code.  Just to take the first example
from my git grep:

arch/arm/mach-orion5x/ts78xx-setup.c
   160                  sz = min_t(int, 4 - off, len);
   161                  writesb(io_base, buf, sz);

If len is negative then we write negative bytes to writesb().  What
was the thinking here?

> Even with my changes min(int_var, sizeof()) is a compile error.
> To do otherwise would really requite the sizeof() to be converted
> to int - leaving the other type alone.
> Easiest done by using 'int' instead of 'typeof(y)' for the
> local variable inside cmp_once().

I think I would maybe like a mins() which returns signed values, and
then we would convert all the min() usages to either minu() or mins()
and delete min().

regards,
dan carpenter