[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types
From: |
Kevin Wolf |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:49:39 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 |
Am 08.07.2012 21:22, schrieb address@hidden:
> From: Blue Swirl <address@hidden>
>
> Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or
> 'int'. Adjust asserts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl <address@hidden>
I haven't followed the original discussion and therefore don't know what
the controversy is about (nor do I feel like reading it up), but if
there is no consensus, I would expect even more than already for normal
patches that the commit message doesn't only state the obvious change,
but also the reasons for the change.
This message isn't much different from the famous "i++; /* increase i by
one */" code comment.
Kevin
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] bitops: drop volatile qualifier, (continued)
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] bitops: drop volatile qualifier, blauwirbel, 2012/07/08
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types, blauwirbel, 2012/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types, Markus Armbruster, 2012/07/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types, Blue Swirl, 2012/07/10
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types, Peter Maydell, 2012/07/10
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types, Blue Swirl, 2012/07/10
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types, Peter Maydell, 2012/07/10
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types, Blue Swirl, 2012/07/12
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types, Peter Maydell, 2012/07/12
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types,
Kevin Wolf <=
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] bitops: use bool, blauwirbel, 2012/07/08