On 07/24/2015 03:11 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Fri 2015-07-24 06:59:26, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 07/23/2015 11:29 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Tue 2015-07-21 09:21:32, Sascha Hauer wrote:
The thermal code uses int, long and unsigned long for temperatures
in different places.
Using an unsigned type limits the thermal framework to positive
temperatures without need. Also several drivers currently will report
temperatures near UINT_MAX for temperatures below 0°C. This will probably
immediately shut the machine down due to overtemperature if started below
0°C.
'long' is 64bit on several architectures. This is not needed since INT_MAX °mC
is above the melting point of all known materials.
Can we do something like
typedef millicelsius_t int;
...to document the units?
I am not very fond of typedefs and I am not sure this adds any value. I
could change it when more people ask for it, but I just sent the new
version without this.
I thought we are supposed to not introduce new typedefs anyway.
You are not supposed to typedef struct, but typedef for millicelsius_t
would be ok. And it is your only chance if you want people to pay
attention. If you make it int, someone will pass it to long or
something else..
Seems to me that would be just lazyness. The same person might use 'long'
even if millicelsius_t is defined. A typedef doesn't preclude people
from ignoring it.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
