On 16/10/2023 17:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.10.2023 17:28, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
--- a/xen/include/xen/types.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/types.h
@@ -22,6 +22,14 @@ typedef signed long ssize_t;
typedef __PTRDIFF_TYPE__ ptrdiff_t;
+/*
+ * Users of this macro are expected to pass a positive value.
Is passing 0 going to cause any issues?
I don't think so, even if that wouldn't make much sense. Given that the
usage of the
zero lenght array extension is documented, that shouldn't be a concern
either.
+ * Eventually, this should become an unsigned quantity, but this
+ * requires fixing various uses of this macro and BITS_PER_LONG in
signed
+ * contexts, such as type-safe 'min' macro uses, which give rise to
build errors
+ * when the arguments have differing signedness, due to the build
flags used.
+ */
I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this part of the comment.
Jan
Isn't it useful to record why it was left as-is, and what should be done
about it?
If it's not, this can be dropped on commit, in my opinion.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
