Re: [KJ] signedness of cpu variables

[walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>]

if this is intended, someone could add a remark about it ?

re,
 wh


Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:32:29 +0100 Thomas Hisch wrote:
> 
>> i digged into the kernel source and found a lot of signed int cpu variables.
>> shouldn't they be replaced by unsigned ints ??
>>
>> for example everywhere in kernel/cpu.c cpu variables are unsigned except in
>> check_for_tasks(int cpu). are there any reasons for the signed int parameter
>> of this  particular function ??
>>
>> any thoughts ??
>> is this sth. for the kernel-janitors ?
> 
> This one makes sense.  Others would need their own evaluations.
> 
>> regards
>> Thomas Hisch
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
>> index 7406fe6..b0d4fbd 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
>> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ void unregister_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_cpu_notifier);
>>
>> -static inline void check_for_tasks(int cpu)
>> +static inline void check_for_tasks(unsigned int cpu)
>>  {
>>         struct task_struct *p;
> 
> 
> ---
> ~Randy
> _______________________________________________
> Kernel-janitors mailing list
> Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors