Re: [KJ] signedness of cpu variables

[walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>]

Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 11:41:19 +0100 walter harms wrote:
> 
>> if this is intended, someone could add a remark about it ?
>>
> 
> If what is intended?  and please use reply-to-all.


ups wrong button :)

my point is:
if there is a reason to have a signed int cpu variable (instead
the 'normal' unsigned int) it should be documented WHY this is an
exception.

re,
 walter



> 
>> 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