Re: [PATCH] PNP: make the resource type an unsigned long

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Rene Herman wrote:
>>
>> Seems a bit pointless ... either one of those flags is >= 32 bits, in 
>> which case we need u64, or it's not, in which case there is no reason 
>> to burden the output with bits we don't need.
> 
> Yes, it's a not a functional patch -- only a type-consistency one. Right 
> now we're mixing ints (signed ones even) and unsigned longs and while in 
> this case that's not a functional problem it's messy and inconsistent.
> 
> I agree (as Andrew said earlier as well) that the struct resource flags 
> member should probably just be a u32 but it's not. Changing that would 
> be a bigger change than just a simple conistency thing.
> 

You're going in the wrong direction for consistency.  long is different 
on 32 and 64 bits, and really should be avoided unless that is intended.

	-hpa