[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5676A833.4090700@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:08:03 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix-clock: Use an unsigned data type for a variable
>>>> Reuse the type from this poll call instead.
>>>
>>> Why use uint when the function return type it unsigned int?
>>
>> Do you prefer to express the type modifier once more there?
>
> I don't know what the sentence means,
Can it be a matter of taste if the key word "unsigned" should be repeated
in such an use case?
> but I think that the type should be referenced in a consistent manner.
How do involved software designers and developers prefer to achieve
data type consistency here?
Which kind of naming convention will get priority?
>>> On the other hand, why is the function return type unsigned int
>>> when there is a return of a negative constant?
>>
>> This implementation detail can trigger further software development
>> considerations, can't it?
>
> It would seem reasonable to address all of the signed/unsigned issues
> related to the function return value at once.
Would you like to extend another evolving script for the semantic patch language?
I imagine that the general issue around the exception handling will cause
too many software development challenges to tackle them "at once".
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists