From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:04:33 -0800
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH V10 03/19] block: use
 bio_for_each_bvec() to compute multi-page bvec count
In-Reply-To: <20181116091956.GA17604@lst.de>
References: <20181115085306.9910-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
	<20181115085306.9910-4-ming.lei@redhat.com>
	<20181115202028.GC9348@vader> <20181115210510.GA24908@redhat.com>
	<20181115221847.GD9348@vader> <20181116091956.GA17604@lst.de>
Message-ID: <20181116160433.GV23828@vader>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:19:56AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 02:18:47PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > My only reason to prefer unsigned int is consistency. unsigned int is
> > much more common in the kernel:
> > 
> > $ ag --cc -s 'unsigned\s+int' | wc -l
> > 129632
> > $ ag --cc -s 'unsigned\s+(?!char|short|int|long)' | wc -l
> > 22435
> > 
> > checkpatch also warns on plain unsigned.
> 
> Talk about chicken and egg.  unsigned is perfectly valid C, and being
> shorter often helps being more readable.  checkpath is as so often
> wrongly opinionated..

Fair enough. Since enough people don't mind bare unsigned in the block
code, I retract my comment :)