From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46435) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgVUd-0003WP-OE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:17:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgVUd-0003Ev-1G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:17:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:15:58 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20150928101558.GD8756@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <1438868176-20364-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1438868176-20364-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1438868176-20364-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/18] qemu-thread: introduce QemuLockCnt List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, famz@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 03:36:01PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > +int qemu_lockcnt_count(QemuLockCnt *lockcnt); Why use int here when the counter field is unsigned?