From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE96C433EF for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:40:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234494AbhLNNkw (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:40:52 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:51448 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234480AbhLNNkv (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:40:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 13698 invoked by uid 109); 14 Dec 2021 13:40:51 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:40:51 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 24589 invoked by uid 111); 14 Dec 2021 13:40:50 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:40:50 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:40:50 -0500 From: Jeff King To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , Erik Faye-Lund , Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] linear-assignment.c: take "size_t", not "int" for *_count Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 01:30:40PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Future-proof and clarify the compute_assignment() interface by having > it take a "size_t" for the count of its that it's processing. For the > content itself we need to be able to store a "-1", but there's no > reason we can't use a "size_t" for the size of the number of "int"'s > we've got. Makes sense. I'm happy to see the counts dealt with independently here, and the reasoning that we can use a straight size_t. The earlier refactoring is paying off a bit, though I think it would be possible without it. -Peff