From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46858) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SowMY-0000HP-JB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:49:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SowMS-0004Xs-E2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:49:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64158) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SowMS-0004Xg-5u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:49:44 -0400 Message-ID: <4FFD7663.8030102@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:49:39 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: blauwirbel@gmail.com Cc: blueswirl@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 08.07.2012 21:22, schrieb blauwirbel@gmail.com: > From: Blue Swirl > > Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or > 'int'. Adjust asserts. > > Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl I haven't followed the original discussion and therefore don't know what the controversy is about (nor do I feel like reading it up), but if there is no consensus, I would expect even more than already for normal patches that the commit message doesn't only state the obvious change, but also the reasons for the change. This message isn't much different from the famous "i++; /* increase i by one */" code comment. Kevin