From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx4: Avoid implicit enumerated type conversion Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:33:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1538087622.226558.8.camel@acm.org> References: <20180924195716.30848-1-natechancellor@gmail.com> <20180924222737.GA26973@flashbox> <20180925023722.GA32600@ziepe.ca> <20180927010803.GA7640@flashbox> <20180927044826.GC24889@ziepe.ca> <20180927202849.GA11120@flashbox> <20180927222821.GC28301@ziepe.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180927222821.GC28301@ziepe.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jason Gunthorpe , Nick Desaulniers Cc: Nathan Chancellor , dledford@redhat.com, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, LKML List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2018-09-27 at 16:28 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: +AD4 On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 01:34:16PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 Neither ib+AF8-qp+AF8-create+AF8-flags nor mlx4+AF8-ib+AF8-qp+AF8-flags have negative values, is +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 signedness necessary? +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 enums are by default restricted to the range of ints. +AD4 +AD4 That's not quite right, the compiler sizes the enum to be able to fit +AD4 the largest value contained within, today that is int, but if we added +AD4 1+ADwAPA-31, then it would become larger. Hi Jason, Are you perhaps confusing C and C+-+-? For C+-+-, an enumeration whose underlying type is not fixed, the underlying type is an integral type that can represent all the enumerator values defined in the enumeration. For C however I think that enumeration values are restricted to what fits in an int. Bart.