linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: Replaces 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int' in the codebase

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]

Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 05:21:30 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     'Roman Storozhenko <romeusmeister@...il.com>, '@...e,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Replaces 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int' in the
 codebase

On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 15:06 +0300, Roman Storozhenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:01:25PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 27/06/2017 11:54, Roman Storozhenko wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Roman Storozhenko <romeusmeister@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  virt/kvm/arm/arm.c        |  2 +-
> > >  virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c |  2 +-
> > >  virt/kvm/eventfd.c        | 10 ++++++----
> > >  virt/kvm/irqchip.c        |  7 ++++---
> > >  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c       | 16 ++++++++--------
> > >  5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > This change is pointless.  Contributors to KVM should know what
> > "unsigned" means.
> 
> Paolo, thanks that you mentioned this. But I have a question - is this just
> useless or this is an error?

(Not Paulo and my 2c) Neither really.

> I saw many places in the codebase where 'unsigned int' is used. That why I
> decided to make the codebase more standartized from the style point of
> view.

In virt/kvm, there are 16 lines with unsigned, 160 with unsigned int

<shrug>, Both statements are correct, yes, it's kinda pointless,
and, yes, it does standardize the declarations.

It's entirely up the the maintainers (Paulo and Radim) to apply
or reject this style-only trivial patch.  The compiler doesn't care.