On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:59:35AM +0200, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 29.05.2013 23:15, schrieb Dan Carpenter: > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 07:34:39PM +0200, walter harms wrote: > > > >> int would be a more "natural" choice. > >> > > > > You should never use signed types for a bit field. That's just > > asking for a sign expansion bug. > > my idea was more to use unsigned int instead of u16. > Personally i try to avoid this (artificial) types as much as possible, Obviously no one wants to go nuts with the type specifiers like the e1000e people who never use "int" and only "s32". But in this case u16 is more readable and more accurate. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
