> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 12:03 PM
> To: Brady, Alan <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Kitszel, Przemyslaw
> <[email protected]>; Bagnucki, Igor <[email protected]>;
> Lobakin, Aleksander <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10 iwl-next] idpf: refactor virtchnl messages
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 11:18:48 -0800 Alan Brady wrote:
> > We did run coccinelle check and see the min suggestions. It's triggering
> > on these statements I added:
> >
> > return reply_sz < 0 ? reply_sz : 0;
> >
> > A min here would change it to:
> >
> > return min(reply_sz, 0);
> >
> > I didn't really like that because it's misleading as though we're
> > returning the size of the reply and might accidentally encourage someone
> > to change it to a max. Here reply_sz will be negative if an error was
> > returned from message sending. But this function we only want to return
> > 0 or negative. By being explicit in what we want to do, it seems clearer
> > to me what the intention is but I could be wrong.
> >
> > We can definitely change it however if that's preferred here.
>
> Hm, okay, that does sound like making it worse.
> I'll disable the minmax coccicheck for now, it seems noisy.
Maybe you could make the coccicheck only complain if the value is non-zero or
not const? Maybe that's a bit too complicated... Hm
