From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "sj-iport-4.cisco.com", Issuer "Cisco SSCA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC925DE437 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:32:17 +1100 (EST) From: Roland Dreier To: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband/ehca: use consistent type References: <20081231141453.45d7f2c1.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:32:13 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20081231141453.45d7f2c1.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:14:53 +1100") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Heiko J Schick , Joachim Fenkes , ppc-dev , Christoph Raisch , general@lists.openfabrics.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , If we're going to clean this code up, does it make sense to take it further? More precisely, your patch does: @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ u64 hipz_h_alloc_resource_eq(const struct ipz_adapter_handle adapter_handle, u32 *eq_ist) { u64 ret; - u64 outs[PLPAR_HCALL9_BUFSIZE]; + unsigned long outs[PLPAR_HCALL9_BUFSIZE]; u64 allocate_controls; but every parameter of ehca_plpar_hcall9() is unsigned long, and the return value is a signed long. So should we change ret to long and all these other declarations to unsigned long while we're touching the code here? - R.