[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171124124944.qriokiaedpi4xjzp@mwanda>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 15:49:44 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Stefano Manni <stefano.manni@...il.com>
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] staging: lustre: fixed signedness of some socklnd
params
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:47:21AM +0100, Stefano Manni wrote:
> I've made the module param nsched signed because the
> ksock_tunables.ksnd_nscheds (the real container) is signed too.
Yeah. I know. And it's way more involved and controversial to change
ksock_tunables.
>
> I definitely agree with you that it does not make sense to have a
> negative number of threads.
> In my opinion it's better to fix this inconsistency between the param
> and the container and then try submit another patch to harmonize
> signedness around the code.
No one will ever think about types again if Sparse stops complaining.
It's better to keep the error message instead of silencing it in a less
than ideal way because it means we have to think about types.
Eventually someone will get sick of the warning and write a huger patch
that rewrites a lot of code.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists