[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9339baa1-4a4b-ad12-e7e5-ba7b80d18031@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:25:05 +0100
From: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] tty: serial: samsung_tty: use 'unsigned int' not
'unsigned'
On 12/12/2019 17:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 08:09:49AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:08:34PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. It's a long-time checkpatch warning, it's good to be explicit for
>>> this type of thing.
>>
>> There is literally no practical benefit going either way. It is
>> just checkpatch forcing one personal opinion on people.
>
> Fair enough, but, I was trying to align up the variables to be the same
> type that was then used in a function call. That's the only reason I
> made this change.
Do you type 'long long unsigned int' for an ULL?
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists