Hi Roland,
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:32:13 -0800 Roland Dreier <rdre...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> If we're going to clean this code up, does it make sense to take it
> further? More precisely, your patch does:
>
> @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ u64 hipz_h_alloc_resource_eq(const struct
> ipz_adapter_handle adapter_handle,
> u32 *eq_ist)
> {
> u64 ret;
> - u64 outs[PLPAR_HCALL9_BUFSIZE];
> + unsigned long outs[PLPAR_HCALL9_BUFSIZE];
> u64 allocate_controls;
>
> but every parameter of ehca_plpar_hcall9() is unsigned long, and the
> return value is a signed long. So should we change ret to long and all
> these other declarations to unsigned long while we're touching the code
> here?At least all the others are passed by value and the normal arithmetic promotion rules apply so no warnings are issued. I will see how much of a pain it is to change the others. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpzEZP8B5kRF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
