On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 12:39:45PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 11/5/20 12:05 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > There is no need to use signed type for number of clients. Moreover, > > it's cleaner to show that we never go negative there. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I'm not a big fan of this change, it feels like needless churn to me. Feel free to not apply it. I think I don't need to resend w/o it (IIRC the rest pretty much independent of this change). But if you need a v2, tell me. > Integers are signed by default and just because a value cannot become > negative is not really a reason to make it unsigned. E.g. your typical > "int i" is often used as an array index so it cannot go negative, still > it almost always is an "int i" not an "unsigned int i". > > IMHO good reasons for deviating from the default signedness and > making a value unsigned are: > > 1. Because the value cannot go negative and we need more range. > 2. To avoid sign-extension when upcasting it to a larger integer type. > > Neither is the case here. I consider one more, i.e. if we know that value may not be negative the unsigned type gives a hint. I always stumbled over signed integers used for loop counters since they confuse me (Q in mind: "should I read code carefully and check if it may or may not be signed? Why it's signed?"). That's why I like the idea of be a bit stricter about types. Hope this explains my motivation. > I do like the other 3 patches, thank you for those. I'm going to wait > a bit with applying them though, to see where things go with the > "[RFC 0/4] platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Pass ACPI fwnode to instantiated i2c-clients" > > Merging them now may get in the way with merging that series if > Wolfram wants to pick up the entire series (since it also involves > an i2c-core change). Usually I expect that RFC has less priority than normal series and I wouldn't expect any maintainer (with some rare exceptions) to take series marked as RFC. And TBH I was wondering why you marked them as such, to me that was fine to send as normal one. Thanks for the review! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
