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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <38739aa0-200e-fd46-ea38-c30a6aa69561@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Mar 2020 09:30:17 +0100
From:   Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To:     Yan Yankovskyi <yyankovskyi@...il.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 02.03.2020 23:18, Yan Yankovskyi wrote:
> 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?

Signed <-> unsigned conversions would perhaps better go into a
separate patch. But note I'm not the maintainer of this code.

> 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.

I'd welcome this, but the maintainers will have the final say.

Jan