On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 02:13 +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 08:37:02PM -0500, John Pittman wrote:
> > In quite a few files throughout the block layer, the bare 'unsigned' is
> > used rather than the preferred 'unsigned int'.
>
> Preferred by whom?
The kernel as a whole, ~12:1
> >
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 08:37:02PM -0500, John Pittman wrote:
> In quite a few files throughout the block layer, the bare 'unsigned' is
> used rather than the preferred 'unsigned int'.
Preferred by whom?
> The issue was
What is that "issue" and why is it a problem in the first place?
> exposed
On 2/14/18 6:37 PM, John Pittman wrote:
> In quite a few files throughout the block layer, the bare 'unsigned' is
> used rather than the preferred 'unsigned int'. The issue was
> exposed by checkpatch.pl. Warnings encountered were:
>
> WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of 'unsigned'
In quite a few files throughout the block layer, the bare 'unsigned' is
used rather than the preferred 'unsigned int'. The issue was
exposed by checkpatch.pl. Warnings encountered were:
WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of 'unsigned'
WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int *' to bare use
4 matches
Mail list logo