Re: int vs uint

[Ben Dooks <ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 08:46:41PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> There are a lot places in the i2c API where int is used when the
> parameter can't be negative. For example, there are more....
> 
> /*
>  * The master routines are the ones normally used to transmit data to devices
>  * on a bus (or read from them). Apart from two basic transfer functions to
>  * transmit one message at a time, a more complex version can be used to
>  * transmit an arbitrary number of messages without interruption.
>  */
> extern int i2c_master_send(struct i2c_client *,const char* ,int);
> extern int i2c_master_recv(struct i2c_client *,char* ,int);
> 
> /* Transfer num messages.
>  */
> extern int i2c_transfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg
> *msgs, int num);
> 
> 	u8 level; 			/* nesting level for lockdep */
> 
> 
> Wouldn't these generate more efficient code if switched to uints?

I'm not sure, most of the time there's not a lot of difference
between the signed and unsigned case. If you can provide an example
of where this is actually true then I would be interested to see...

Technically, an unsigned int or simply an unsigned would be a
reasonable change given that you can't really have a minus number
of transfers.

-- 
Ben (ben-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, http://www.fluff.org/)

  'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'

_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c