From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB2E1F87F for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2018 23:40:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727839AbeKSKBz (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2018 05:01:55 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:65482 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726565AbeKSKBz (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2018 05:01:55 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E9311AABF; Sun, 18 Nov 2018 18:40:12 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=RiVZ7E0ZUkelw0IOkFkQSj88xE0=; b=lIqye6 sV5tNEvPgUZxwyKeln7zSlG4bii8DitG3yewGq8pM/vFPyW3aPyW0HaSKprlNKJK irzxFcGB4d1+KA158Us6eUOLNbaRXiwV1ZTXHkmkvKOd4xVF4LgrEvaG/OSq1Dhv POn79QixxkIBbty9p0duqGOzXrKdWYudV1/pM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=qcWEZr9sqeUHWAQ4Zi2a92dV32wuQc3Q Gok71Fr9Mu5NekoJDIbwnHai52w611ds9lLgjiPNoUpvk+cZqOCNhtMurjZya0VA BO2ssBF5afeJ6Pr1GFkdT33Zg539yx6sp0MIJDeULebXzWqMLP1+ieS6jlgPkdqO 3c6f7Jj2RGA= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005CF11AABE; Sun, 18 Nov 2018 18:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.155.68.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72FE411AABC; Sun, 18 Nov 2018 18:40:11 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: tboegi@web.de, git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v1 1/1] Use size_t instead of unsigned long References: <20181117151139.22994-1-tboegi@web.de> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 08:40:10 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Derrick Stolee's message of "Sun, 18 Nov 2018 15:18:52 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4A540E24-EB8B-11E8-97C9-BFB3E64BB12D-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: >> This needs to go on top of pu, to cover all the good stuff >> cooking here. > > Better to work on top of 'master', as the work in 'pu' will be > rewritten several times, probably. We may not be able to find any good moment to update some codepaths with deep callchains that reaches a basic API function that take ulong that way, as things are always in motion, but hopefully a lot of areas that need changes are rather isolated. For example, the changes I see around "offset" (which is "ulong" and the patch wants to change it to "size_t") in archive-tar.c in the patch do not have any interaction with the changes in this patch outside that single file, and I do not think any topic in-flight would interact with this change badly, either. I didn't carefully look at the remainder of the patches, but I have a feeling that many can be separated out into independent and focused set of smaller patches that can be evaluated on their own.