On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:21:30AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 15:06 +0300, Roman Storozhenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:01:25PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 27/06/2017 11:54, Roman Storozhenko wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Roman Storozhenko <romeusmeister@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +- > > > > virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c | 2 +- > > > > virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 10 ++++++---- > > > > virt/kvm/irqchip.c | 7 ++++--- > > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > > > > 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > > > This change is pointless. Contributors to KVM should know what > > > "unsigned" means. > > > > Paolo, thanks that you mentioned this. But I have a question - is this just > > useless or this is an error? > > (Not Paulo and my 2c) Neither really. > > > I saw many places in the codebase where 'unsigned int' is used. That why I > > decided to make the codebase more standartized from the style point of > > view. > > In virt/kvm, there are 16 lines with unsigned, 160 with unsigned int > > <shrug>, Both statements are correct, yes, it's kinda pointless, > and, yes, it does standardize the declarations. > > It's entirely up the the maintainers (Paulo and Radim) to apply > or reject this style-only trivial patch. The compiler doesn't care. > Joe, thank you for your detailed answer. Anyway I hope that this patch will be accepted despite it is useless from the compiler's point of view. I think that the codebase style matters too.
