Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] mm: Section numbers use the type "unsigned long"

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:06:54 +0200 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote:

> 
> 
> Le 14/06/2019 à 21:00, Andrew Morton a écrit :
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
> >> consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
> >> memory block ids next.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> -	int i, ret, section_count = 0;
> >> +	unsigned long i;
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> -	unsigned int i;
> >> +	unsigned long i;
> > 
> > Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the
> > expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int".
> > 
> > This?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > s/unsigned long i/unsigned long section_nr/
> 
>  From my point of view you degrade readability by doing that.
> 
> section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr + section_nr);
> 
> Three times the word 'section_nr' in one line, is that worth it ? Gives 
> me headache.
> 
> Codying style says the following, which makes full sense in my opinion:
> 
> LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point.  If you have
> some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``.
> Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
> being mis-understood.

Well.  It did say "integer".  Calling an unsigned long `i' is flat out
misleading.

> What about just naming it 'nr' if we want to use something else than 'i' ?

Sure, that works.