linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: gpio: Use explicit 'unsigned int' for parameter types

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <175268011566.721108.5592985482306665761.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 16:35:15 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
 Darshan Rathod <darshanrathod475@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: gpio: Use explicit 'unsigned int' for parameter
 types

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 09:59:05 +0000, Darshan Rathod wrote:
> The C standard allows 'unsigned' as a shorthand for 'unsigned int'.
> For improved code clarity and consistency with the prevailing kernel coding
> style, replace the shorthand with the more explicit 'unsigned int' type
> for function parameters.
> 
> This is a purely stylistic cleanup and has no functional impact on the
> generated code.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: gpio: Use explicit 'unsigned int' for parameter types
      commit: d929cc75e9791def049a90998aaab8934196131c

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark