From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB42C43441 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7781F208A3 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:42:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7781F208A3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389496AbeKPTxa (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:53:30 -0500 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32]:42901 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727405AbeKPTxa (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:53:30 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS413-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6105A91790A54; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:41:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.151.23.176] (10.151.23.176) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:41:50 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 03/19] block: use bio_for_each_bvec() to compute multi-page bvec count To: Christoph Hellwig CC: Omar Sandoval , Mike Snitzer , Ming Lei , Jens Axboe , , , , Dave Chinner , Kent Overstreet , , Alexander Viro , , Shaohua Li , , , David Sterba , , "Darrick J . Wong" , , Theodore Ts'o , , Coly Li , , Boaz Harrosh , "Bob Peterson" , References: <20181115085306.9910-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181115085306.9910-4-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181115202028.GC9348@vader> <20181115210510.GA24908@redhat.com> <20181115221847.GD9348@vader> <20181116091956.GA17604@lst.de> From: Gao Xiang Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:41:47 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181116091956.GA17604@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.151.23.176] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018/11/16 17:19, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 02:18:47PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> My only reason to prefer unsigned int is consistency. unsigned int is >> much more common in the kernel: >> >> $ ag --cc -s 'unsigned\s+int' | wc -l >> 129632 >> $ ag --cc -s 'unsigned\s+(?!char|short|int|long)' | wc -l >> 22435 >> >> checkpatch also warns on plain unsigned. > > Talk about chicken and egg. unsigned is perfectly valid C, and being > shorter often helps being more readable. checkpath is as so often > wrongly opinionated.. > sigh...I personally tend to use "unsigned" instead of "unsigned int" as well, but checkpatch.pl also suggests erofs to use "unsigned int" :-( Thanks, Gao Xiang