On 2026-02-06 10:09:12+0100, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote: > > > Le 13/01/2026 à 13:28, Thomas Weißschuh a écrit : > > Switching the types will make some later changes cleaner. > > size_t is also the semantically correct type for this field. > > > > As both 'size_t' and 'unsigned int' are always the same size, this > > should be risk-free.
> Are you sure ? As mentioned before by David [0], this should have been 'unsigned long' instead of 'unsigned int'. Which is also what the diff shows. > Some architectures have size_t as 'unsigned int', some have 'unsigned long', > some have 'unsigned long long' (...) [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
