From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753434AbdKWXrZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 23 Nov 2017 18:47:25 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:41694 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753368AbdKWXrY (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 23 Nov 2017 18:47:24 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaG+XeZlZ8fd2rhnDzpXUM8N1AbycPp1pgg4PG1YNBfrU7Qi9u1I41du5UewrCcpwu/El48FQ==
Message-ID: <1511480841.8829.3.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] staging: lustre: fixed signedness of some socklnd
 params
From: Stefano Manni <stefano.manni@gmail.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
        James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:47:21 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20171123121306.nu66ktiqjedongpp@mwanda>
References: <20171122193831.11801-1-stefano.manni@gmail.com>
         <20171122193831.11801-2-stefano.manni@gmail.com>
         <20171123121306.nu66ktiqjedongpp@mwanda>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 (3.22.6-2.fc25) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 15:13 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I've looked through this series and I feel like none of these are
> real
> bugs.  It's just about type safety and being consistent.  Which are
> good
> things.  I'm not sure that I like the parts where we make the
> variables
> signed.
> 
> Here "nscheds" is the number of threads.  How can we have a negative
> number?  I think it should be unsigned.  It's way more tricky to
> change
> the rest of the code, and leave nscheds unsigned int but I think it's
> probably the right thing.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 

I've made the module param nsched signed because the
ksock_tunables.ksnd_nscheds (the real container) is signed too.

I definitely agree with you that it does not make sense to have a
negative number of threads.
In my opinion it's better to fix this inconsistency between the param
and the container and then try submit another patch to harmonize
signedness around the code.

Thanks,
Stefano