On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:01:34AM -0700, Bryan Wu wrote: >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > 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. >> > >> >> Do you mind to clean up this driver with u16? or I will do it. > > I resent the patch already. Hopefully, that's ok? > I didn't get it, did you resent it to linux-leds mail list or just LKML? -Bryan -- 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
