[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCXOF3q16RMQQagU@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 13:20:55 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/29] x86/boot/e820: Use 'u64' consistently instead of
'unsigned long long'
* Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 08:51:50PM +0200, Ingo Molnar kirjoitti:
> > There's a number of structure fields and local variables related
> > to E820 entry physical addresses that are defined as 'unsigned long long',
> > but then are compared to u64 fields.
> >
> > Make the types all consistently u64.
>
> ...
>
> > + u64 start = e820_table->entries[i].addr;
> > + u64 end = start + e820_table->entries[i].size;
>
> Perhaps struct range as well?
I'm not opposed in principle, but that should be a separate patch or
series.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists