Re: [PATCH] block: Change 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int' throughout block layer
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 > > The issue was > > What is that "issue" and why is it a problem in the first place? it's not. > Oh, good - so presumably it does have some explanations beyond "The Most Holy > checkpatch.pl Spake Unto Us"; could the esteemed sir share those with us? infidel... ;)
Re: [PATCH] block: Change 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int' throughout block layer
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 > > The issue was > > What is that "issue" and why is it a problem in the first place? it's not. > Oh, good - so presumably it does have some explanations beyond "The Most Holy > checkpatch.pl Spake Unto Us"; could the esteemed sir share those with us? infidel... ;)
Re: [PATCH] block: Change 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int' throughout block layer
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 by checkpatch.pl. Warnings encountered were: Oh, good - so presumably it does have some explanations beyond "The Most Holy checkpatch.pl Spake Unto Us"; could the esteemed sir share those with us?
Re: [PATCH] block: Change 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int' throughout block layer
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 by checkpatch.pl. Warnings encountered were: Oh, good - so presumably it does have some explanations beyond "The Most Holy checkpatch.pl Spake Unto Us"; could the esteemed sir share those with us?
Re: [PATCH] block: Change 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int' throughout block layer
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' > WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int *' to bare use of 'unsigned *' > > Fixed 64 total warnings. I'm not going to take this, unless there's a specific bug related to it. -- Jens Axboe
Re: [PATCH] block: Change 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int' throughout block layer
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' > WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int *' to bare use of 'unsigned *' > > Fixed 64 total warnings. I'm not going to take this, unless there's a specific bug related to it. -- Jens Axboe
