From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gateway21.websitewelcome.com ([192.185.45.147]:39339 "EHLO gateway21.websitewelcome.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763466AbdAIThK (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:37:10 -0500 Received: from cm6.websitewelcome.com (cm6.websitewelcome.com [108.167.139.19]) by gateway21.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB611400FD789 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:37:07 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <1aa7cc9028eab7ebc2a2e9c6bb48e43c.squirrel@webmail.raithlin.com> In-Reply-To: <20161219154256.GB3512@localhost.localdomain> References: <1481914491-21456-1-git-send-email-sbates@raithlin.com> <1481914491-21456-3-git-send-email-sbates@raithlin.com> <20161219154256.GB3512@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:37:06 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: improve cmb sysfs reporting From: "Stephen Bates" To: "Jon Derrick" Cc: axboe@fb.com, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org > Minor nit below > > >> + >> + for (i = NVME_CMB_CAP_SQS; i <= NVME_CMB_CAP_WDS; i++) >> > I'd prefer seeing (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(..); i++) because it provides > automatic bounds checking against future code. > Thanks Jon, I will take a look at doing this in a V1. Stephen From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sbates@raithlin.com (Stephen Bates) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:37:06 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: improve cmb sysfs reporting In-Reply-To: <20161219154256.GB3512@localhost.localdomain> References: <1481914491-21456-1-git-send-email-sbates@raithlin.com> <1481914491-21456-3-git-send-email-sbates@raithlin.com> <20161219154256.GB3512@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1aa7cc9028eab7ebc2a2e9c6bb48e43c.squirrel@webmail.raithlin.com> > Minor nit below > > >> + >> + for (i = NVME_CMB_CAP_SQS; i <= NVME_CMB_CAP_WDS; i++) >> > I'd prefer seeing (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(..); i++) because it provides > automatic bounds checking against future code. > Thanks Jon, I will take a look at doing this in a V1. Stephen