From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F546C47E49 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:28:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E022222C5 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:28:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729526AbfKEB17 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:27:59 -0500 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32]:44780 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730410AbfKEB17 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:27:59 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3DB48F0BE0F5FE0625B8; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:27:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.177.223.23) by DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:27:50 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI/PPTT: fixed some parameter type is not right From: Hanjun Guo To: Tian Tao , , , , CC: References: <1572916055-62477-1-git-send-email-tiantao6@huawei.com> Message-ID: <86652e9c-0c2a-96e6-cfc4-982431aad355@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:27:00 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.223.23] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 2019/11/5 9:15, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2019/11/5 9:07, Tian Tao wrote: >> acpi_find_cache_level with level parameter as a signed integer, >> is called by acpi_find_cache_node where the level parameter is unsigned. >> This in turn calls acpi_find_cache_level with the level parameter is >> signed.Make the type consistent as unsigned through all 3 calls. > > I'm not against doing this, but it's not a big deal :) > > Maybe send to upstream to see what's happening, Rafael is a nice guy. Oh, already sent to upstream, my bad :(