Re: [PATCH] PNP: make the resource type an unsigned long
From: Rene Herman
Date: Sat Aug 09 2008 - 01:32:26 EST
On 09-08-08 07:25, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Seems a bit pointless ... either one of those flags is >= 32 bits, in
which case we need u64, or it's not, in which case there is no reason
to burden the output with bits we don't need.
Yes, it's a not a functional patch -- only a type-consistency one.
Right now we're mixing ints (signed ones even) and unsigned longs and
while in this case that's not a functional problem it's messy and
inconsistent.
I agree (as Andrew said earlier as well) that the struct resource
flags member should probably just be a u32 but it's not. Changing that
would be a bigger change than just a simple conistency thing.
You're going in the wrong direction for consistency. long is different
on 32 and 64 bits, and really should be avoided unless that is intended.
I know and fair enough but changing struct resource is just a bit too
central for my tastes.
<shrug>
Rene.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/