On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:06:54 +0200 Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@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 <da...@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.
