qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.13] pc-bios/s390-ccw: size_t should be uns


From: Collin Walling
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.13] pc-bios/s390-ccw: size_t should be unsigned
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:54:03 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0

On 04/13/2018 10:30 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> "size_t" should be an unsigned type - the signed counterpart is called
> "ssize_t" in the C standard instead. Thus we should also use this
> convention in the s390-ccw firmware to avoid confusion. I checked the
> sources, and apart from one spot in libc.c (which now uses ssize_t with
> this patch), the code should all be fine with this change.
> 
> Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1753437
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> ---
>  pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.c | 2 +-
>  pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.h | 3 ++-
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.c
> index 38ea77d..827d204 100644
> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.c
> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.c
> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ uint64_t atoui(const char *str)
>   */
>  char *uitoa(uint64_t num, char *str, size_t len)
>  {
> -    size_t num_idx = 1; /* account for NUL */
> +    ssize_t num_idx = 1; /* account for NUL */
>      uint64_t tmp = num;
>  
>      IPL_assert(str != NULL, "uitoa: no space allocated to store string");
> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.h b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.h
> index 63ece70..57c4199 100644
> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.h
> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.h
> @@ -12,7 +12,8 @@
>  #ifndef S390_CCW_LIBC_H
>  #define S390_CCW_LIBC_H
>  
> -typedef long               size_t;
> +typedef unsigned long      size_t;
> +typedef signed long        ssize_t;
>  typedef int                bool;
>  typedef unsigned char      uint8_t;
>  typedef unsigned short     uint16_t;
> 

Looks good to me as well.

If another r-b is even necessary:

Reviewed-by: Collin Walling <address@hidden>

-- 
Respectfully,
- Collin Walling




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]