On 06.01.2025 12:08, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 06/01/2025 11:04 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >> These interfaces were - afaict - originally introduced this way on the >> firm assumption that the used array sizes would be good virtually >> forever. While this assumption turned out to not be true for at least >> some of them, this still doesn't really render them "broken": They still >> fit their original purpose, and they are still usable for a fair subset >> of environments. Re-word the comments accordingly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > No. > > The community voted and rejected this opinion.
That's not my recollection of what was voted on, and with the vote results not being available referring to them is unhelpful anyway. My (admittedly vague) recollection is that it was decided to leave enough room for wording choice by submitters. That would cover your original patch, and it would equally cover mine. Jan
