On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 11:59:05 +0530 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:51:16PM +0530, Siddh Raman Pant wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 20:20:02 +0530 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > I don't think changing these from u64 to s64 is the right way to go. > > > > Why do you think so? Is there somnething I overlooked? > > > > I think it won't intorduce regression, since if something is working, > > it will continue to work. If something does break, then they were > > relying on overflows, which is anyways an incorrect way to go about. > > Well, for example userspace code expecting unsignedness of these > types could break. So if we really think changing the types is so > much preferred we'd need to audit common userspace first. Because > of that I think the version proposed by willy is generally preferred. Alright. > > Also, it seems even the 32-bit compatibility structure uses signed > > types. > > We should probably fix that as well. Isn't having signed type how it is should be though? Or do you mean need to fix assignment in the conversions (like in loop_info64_from_compat)? Thanks, Siddh
