On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:49:35 +0100 Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:04:45 +0100 > > Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > +static inline void kvm_request_set(unsigned req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > > Should we make req unsigned long as well, so that it matches the bit > > api even more? > > The bitops API is inconsistent among architectures; some are int, some > are unsigned int, some are unsigned long, and x86 is long. If we want > to be consistent with something, then, IMO, we should be consistent with > asm-generic/bitops, which is int, but actually unsigned makes more sense > to me... Inconsistent interfaces are great :/ Having (any) unsigned value makes the most sense to me as well.
