Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> writes: > Le 15/06/2021 à 09:18, Michael Ellerman a écrit : >> Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> writes: >>> This series is a cleanup of the use of 'struct ppc_inst'. >>> >>> A confusion is made between internal representation of powerpc >>> instructions with 'struct ppc_inst' and in-memory code which is >>> and will always be an array of 'unsigned int'. >> >> Why don't we use u32 *, to make it even more explicit what the expected >> size is? >> > > I guess that's historical, we could use u32 *
Yeah I think it is historical, we just never thought about it much. > We can convert it incrementaly maybe ? I've still got this series in next-test, so I'll go through it and change any uses of unsigned int * to u32 *, and then we can do another pass later to change the remaining cases. cheers