From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: walter harms Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:41:19 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] signedness of cpu variables Message-Id: <45C9ACCF.8020203@bfs.de> List-Id: References: <8ef77f2e0702061132lf8e4a2cj7ae612976029e21b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8ef77f2e0702061132lf8e4a2cj7ae612976029e21b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org 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