linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PATCH] gpio: Replace usage of bare 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int'

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: <CACRpkdYO2r0EuCY6EOt=Px-O6J9Hxzu_LqbXziXk7axea1o+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:26:01 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Hennie Muller <hm@...labs.co.za>
Cc:     Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PATCH] gpio: Replace usage of bare 'unsigned' with
 'unsigned int'

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:52 AM Hennie Muller <hm@...labs.co.za> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:05:00AM +0800, Phil Reid wrote:

> > I've encountered these checkpatch warnings as well.
> >
> > However 'struct gpio_chip' callbacks define the function signatures
> > as 'unsigned', not 'unsigned int'. So I've also left them as is, to explicitly
> > match the struct definition.
> >
> > Be interested to know what the official take on this is.
> In hindsight, I saw most of the other gpio drivers follow the same
> convention as the viperboard driver. which means
> a) my changes add no value and just creates inconsistency.
> or
> b) there's an opportunity to fix up the rest of the gpio drivers as
> well? Which I'll be happy to do.

I think it is fine to fix this in drivers and we can fix the prototypes
as well.

Yours,
Linus Walleij