Hi Rodrigo, On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 02:58:25PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > > The cast from "long" to "unsigned long" is unnecessary. Remove > > it. > > I don't believe we can be that bold in this statement. > Some static analyzer tools might not agree and tell that > if the start or end are negative values we could have > undefined behavior. Right, but we do check for negative values before. If we reach this point I'm sure this is positive and I'm also sure that a positive long fits into an unsigned long. Maybe I should have been clearer in the commit log. > > In this case, the variables "start" and "end" are of type long > > because they need to account for the possibility of negative > > values. However, they are subsequently moved to "unsigned long" > > since addresses are typically handled as unsigned values. > > right, but the static analyzer tools won't agree and complain > and people will start try to add this back. > > Do we really need this patch? It's a cleanup, like removing trailing spaces, none of them is really needed :-) Trivial removals of unnecessary casts are normally done around the kernel, but, of course we can drop this patch. Thanks, Andi
