From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] core: add API header and driver header files Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:23:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: <3CA6C6D9F70D314CA34352990B57DA1507CCB50B02@bgsmsx502.gar.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A786103B6C for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:23:06 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3CA6C6D9F70D314CA34352990B57DA1507CCB50B02@bgsmsx502.gar.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: "Nallasellan, Singaravelan" Cc: Pierre-Louis Bossart , Vinod Koul , "broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "lrg@ti.com" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:19:49 +0530, Nallasellan, Singaravelan wrote: > > > + size_t buffer_size; > > + size_t fragment_size; > Can we define buffer_size and fragment_size as unsigned items? size_t is unsigned. But, it needs consideration whether size_t is the best choice, since size_t is basically a long, thus its size is different between 32bit and 64bit architectures. This may lead to mess in many cases when you think of overlapping. Takashi