On Fri, 19 May 2023 13:53:01 +0200,
Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:04:32PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 May 2023 12:43:24 +0200,
> > Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 04:53:19PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 18 May 2023 16:09:45 +0200,
> >> > Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >> >> -static int snd_emu10k1_pcm_channel_alloc(struct snd_emu10k1_pcm * epcm, int voices)
> >> >> +static void snd_emu10k1_pcm_free_voices(struct snd_emu10k1_pcm *epcm)
> >> >> {
> >> >> - int err, i;
> >> >> -
> >> >> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(epcm->voices); i++) {
> >> >> + for (unsigned i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(epcm->voices); i++) {
> >> >
> > I'm not super-strict about it, but
>
> > as checkpatch complaints,
> >
> it doesn't, so from that side it's settled. it's really just about the
> alsa-local policy.
>
> what it actually *does* complain about is the use of bare
> "unsigned".
Ah that's OK, then.
> i don't like the excessively verbose "unsigned int", so
> i'll switch my uses over to "uint", which already has some use in
> alsa. ok?
I don't mind much about the use of unsigned without int. Or it could
be a simple int there, as that's nothing but a counter that is used
locally that can't over 31bit.
But the patch description could be still improved.
thanks,
Takashi
