On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 08:40:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 02:00:08PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >>+ OPT_UNSIGNED(0, "max-commits", &write_opts.max_commits, > >> > >>+ size_t max_commits; > >> > > dunno, this really seems to be crying for OPT_SIZE_T being split off. > > Or just use "unsigned int". We don't need `OPT_SIZE_T` because `OPT_UNSIGNED()` knows to handle unsigned integers of arbitrary widths. It does a `sizeof()` of the value and passes that as precision to the parsing code. > Really, what does NUMBER OF commits we will handle have anything to > do with how many bytes of core we ask to grab from the system? > > This "we count things in size_t" is a superstition we should stop. Will adapt to use `unsigned`. Patrick
