linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xen: Use 'unsigned int' instead of 'unsigned'

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: <20200302221826.GA18206@kbp1-lhp-F74019>
Date:   Tue, 3 Mar 2020 00:18:26 +0200
From:   Yan Yankovskyi <yyankovskyi@...il.com>
To:     Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: Use 'unsigned int' instead of 'unsigned'

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:11 Jan Beulich wrote:
> ... evtchn_port_t here and elsewhere.

There are some interfaces with signed int as a type for port, e.g. in
include/xen/events.h.
Should I create additional patch to resolve inconsistency with evtchn
interface?
Or you suggest combining these changes into the existing patch?

Also as I understand 'evtchn' and 'port' are essentially the same
entities from perspective of local domain, related to each other roughly
like connection and file descriptor pair. What do you think about
renaming all 'evtchn' arguments and variables to 'port'?
It will eliminate inconsistencies in the code, for example
in include/xen/interface/event_channel.h and include/xen/events.h.