Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] mm: Section numbers use the type "unsigned long"

[Michael Ellerman]

Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:06:54 +0200 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> Le 14/06/2019 Ã 21:00, Andrew Morton a ÃcritÂ:
>> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
>> >> consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
>> >> memory block ids next.
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> -	int i, ret, section_count = 0;
>> >> +	unsigned long i;
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> -	unsigned int i;
>> >> +	unsigned long i;
>> > 
>> > Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the
>> > expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int".
...
>> Codying style says the following, which makes full sense in my opinion:
>> 
>> LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point.  If you have
>> some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``.
>> Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
>> being mis-understood.
>
> Well.  It did say "integer".  Calling an unsigned long `i' is flat out
> misleading.

I always thought `i` was for loop `index` not `integer`.

But I've never written any Fortran :)

cheers