On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 02:59:41AM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 01:27:54PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > The main problem is that the parentheses are in the wrong place and the > > unlikely() call returns either 0 or 1 so it's never less than zero. > > Doh, thanks, yes. Seems worth considering a grammar rule for it. > > > The other problem is that signed integer overflows like "INT_MAX + 1" are > > undefined behavior. > > Likewise. > > This seems like another possible generic typo issue. But I would not resolve > it > the way you did, in this particular case below num_test_devs represents the > number of already registered devs, before we increment. So the way to resolve > this would be: > > if (num_test_devs + 1 == INT_MAX) > > I'll get this upstream, thanks!
There is no issue if num_test_devs is INT_MAX. But capping it at INT_MAX - 1 is also fine. regards, dan carpenter
