On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:58:42 -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
> I'm not sure whether avoiding incrementing here is an ideal move, but
> this diff definitely works toward a local optimum. Namely, that error
> check is technically meaningless because signed overflow is undefined.
>
> ok? Or would
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether avoiding incrementing here is an ideal move, but
> > this diff definitely works toward a local optimum. Namely, that error
> > check is technically meaningless because signed overflow is undefined.
>
> Within the kernel, signed overflow actually is
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:58:42 -0400
> From: Michael McConville
>
> I'm not sure whether avoiding incrementing here is an ideal move, but
> this diff definitely works toward a local optimum. Namely, that error
> check is technically meaningless because signed overflow is