Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 01:38:32PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: >> - convince and review code to see that everything is uint64_t. > > One general question to patches regarding this - what's the major benefit > of using uint64_t? > > It doubles the possible numbers to hold, but it's already 64bits so I don't > think it matters a lot.
We were checking for negatives even when that can't be. And we are doing this dance of int64_t x, y; uint64_t a, b; x = a; b = y; This is always confusing and not always right. > The thing is we're removing some code trying to > detect negative which seems to be still helpful to detect e.g. overflows > (even though I don't think it'll happen). I just still think it's good to > know when overflow happens, and not sure what I missed on benefits of using > unsigned here. If you grep through the code, you see that half of the things are int64_t and the other half is uint64_t. I find it always confusing. > I've reviewed all the rest patches and all look good here. Thanks very much.
