linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH V10 03/19] block: use bio_for_each_bvec() to compute multi-page bvec count

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a0105f7a-95b2-3a42-1543-3e8b999edb30@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:41:47 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC:     Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        <dm-devel@...hat.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>,
        <linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org>, Boaz Harrosh <ooo@...ctrozaur.com>,
        "Bob Peterson" <rpeterso@...hat.com>, <cluster-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 03/19] block: use bio_for_each_bvec() to compute
 multi-page bvec count


On 2018/11/16 17:19, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 02:18:47PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>> My only reason to prefer unsigned int is consistency. unsigned int is
>> much more common in the kernel:
>>
>> $ ag --cc -s 'unsigned\s+int' | wc -l
>> 129632
>> $ ag --cc -s 'unsigned\s+(?!char|short|int|long)' | wc -l
>> 22435
>>
>> checkpatch also warns on plain unsigned.
> 
> Talk about chicken and egg.  unsigned is perfectly valid C, and being
> shorter often helps being more readable.  checkpath is as so often
> wrongly opinionated..
> 

sigh...I personally tend to use "unsigned" instead of "unsigned int" as well,
but checkpatch.pl also suggests erofs to use "unsigned int" :-(

Thanks,
Gao Xiang