From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S940584AbdAIUCL (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 15:02:11 -0500 Received: from gateway31.websitewelcome.com ([192.185.144.94]:40543 "EHLO gateway31.websitewelcome.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S940117AbdAIUCF (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 15:02:05 -0500 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 User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.5.2 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - estate.websitewelcome.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [1547 32008] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - raithlin.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: X-Exim-ID: 1cQfkg-0002P7-3H X-Source: X-Source-Args: /usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/php/54/bin/php-cgi /usr/local/cpanel/base/3rdparty/squirrelmail/src/compose.php X-Source-Dir: /usr/local/cpanel/base/3rdparty/squirrelmail/src X-Source-Sender: X-Source-Auth: raithlin X-Email-Count: 11 X-Source-Cap: cmFpdGhsaW47c2NvdHQ7ZXN0YXRlLndlYnNpdGV3ZWxjb21lLmNvbQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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