Patch Set #6, Line 11:
no dependency on size_t
I don't understand the point of this line item. API can freely use size_t as it shouldn't matter.
Patch Set #6, Line 90:
I don't understand the point of this change. There's not reason one can't use ssize_t or size_t.
Patch Set #6, Line 105:
I don't like the change of the type, but this is a nonsense check now that bufsize is pointing to an unsigned integer.
Patch Set #6, Line 187:
if (scan_end(&end) == CB_ERR)
We're doing lookup_store() inside of scan_end(). Why are we duplicating those paths? Can we combine these paths so we're not duplicating work?
Similarly, I would expect lookup_store() to return a writable region_device. The fact that it differs based on IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMMSTORE_IN_CBFS) is odd.
you open coded 1 here, but didn't below w/ nul. I think we should be consistent.
Patch Set #6, Line 230:
We're just always successful it seems?
To view, visit change 30432. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.