Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()

Rafał Miłecki
2011-08-24T10:01:11Z

W dniu 23 sierpnia 2011 21:13 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
<error27@gmail.com> napisał:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
>> <error27@gmail.com> napisał:
>> > The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
>> > break.  I changed it to int.
>>
>> In declaration we use s32:
>> static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);
>>
>> Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?
>>
>
> I don't know.  I think I'm going to trust the original author on this
> one.  I'll send you a v2 that uses s32.

Dan, I asked you to use int in both: call and function declaration.
I'm the author of that code, and I don't have anything against
modifying that :)

I think int is used much more often that s32 for errors.

--
Rafał