From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1032595AbeBOC0W (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2018 21:26:22 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0020.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.20]:40793 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1032447AbeBOC0V (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2018 21:26:21 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:6119:7550:7903:8531:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12740:12760:12895:13069:13161:13229:13311:13357:13439:14181:14659:21080:21222:21611:21627:30054:30070:30090:30091,0,RBL:47.151.150.235:@perches.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.8.0.100 64.201.201.201,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:neutral,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:20,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: dolls11_543a8679adc32 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1457 Message-ID: <1518661577.3678.44.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Change 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int' throughout block layer From: Joe Perches To: Al Viro , John Pittman Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:26:17 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20180215021321.GB30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1518658622-5931-1-git-send-email-jpittman@redhat.com> <20180215021321.GB30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.1-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 02:13 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 08:37:02PM -0500, John Pittman wrote: > > In quite a few files throughout the block layer, the bare 'unsigned' is > > used rather than the preferred 'unsigned int'. > > Preferred by whom? The kernel as a whole, ~12:1 > > The issue was > > What is that "issue" and why is it a problem in the first place? it's not. > Oh, good - so presumably it does have some explanations beyond "The Most Holy > checkpatch.pl Spake Unto Us"; could the esteemed sir share those with us? infidel... ;)