This is just for the style and consistency reasons as the former is
being used more often than the latter.
Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@arm.com>
---
xen/common/grant_table.c | 6 +++---
xen/common/gunzip.c | 8 ++++----
xen/common/sched/cpupool.c | 4 ++--
xen/common/trace.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/grant_table.c b/xen/common/grant_table.c
index 3918e6de6b..2d110d9f41 100644
--- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
+++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
@@ -895,7 +895,7 @@ done:
static int _set_status(const grant_entry_header_t *shah,
grant_status_t *status,
struct domain *rd,
- unsigned rgt_version,
+ unsigned int rgt_version,
struct active_grant_entry *act,
int readonly,
int mapflag,
@@ -1763,8 +1763,8 @@ static int
gnttab_populate_status_frames(struct domain *d, struct grant_table *gt,
unsigned int req_nr_frames)
{
- unsigned i;
- unsigned req_status_frames;
+ unsigned int i;
+ unsigned int req_status_frames;
req_status_frames = grant_to_status_frames(req_nr_frames);
diff --git a/xen/common/gunzip.c b/xen/common/gunzip.c
index aa16fec4bb..71ec5f26be 100644
--- a/xen/common/gunzip.c
+++ b/xen/common/gunzip.c
@@ -14,13 +14,13 @@ static memptr __initdata free_mem_end_ptr;
#define WSIZE 0x80000000
static unsigned char *__initdata inbuf;
-static unsigned __initdata insize;
+static unsigned int __initdata insize;
/* Index of next byte to be processed in inbuf: */
-static unsigned __initdata inptr;
+static unsigned int __initdata inptr;
/* Bytes in output buffer: */
-static unsigned __initdata outcnt;
+static unsigned int __initdata outcnt;
#define OF(args) args
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static __init void flush_window(void)
* compute the crc.
*/
unsigned long c = crc;
- unsigned n;
+ unsigned int n;
unsigned char *in, ch;
in = window;
diff --git a/xen/common/sched/cpupool.c b/xen/common/sched/cpupool.c
index a20e3a5fcb..2afe54f54d 100644
--- a/xen/common/sched/cpupool.c
+++ b/xen/common/sched/cpupool.c
@@ -850,7 +850,7 @@ int cpupool_do_sysctl(struct xen_sysctl_cpupool_op *op)
case XEN_SYSCTL_CPUPOOL_OP_ADDCPU:
{
- unsigned cpu;
+ unsigned int cpu;
const cpumask_t *cpus;
cpu = op->cpu;
@@ -895,7 +895,7 @@ int cpupool_do_sysctl(struct xen_sysctl_cpupool_op *op)
case XEN_SYSCTL_CPUPOOL_OP_RMCPU:
{
- unsigned cpu;
+ unsigned int cpu;
c = cpupool_get_by_id(op->cpupool_id);
ret = -ENOENT;
diff --git a/xen/common/trace.c b/xen/common/trace.c
index a7c092fcbb..fb3752ce62 100644
--- a/xen/common/trace.c
+++ b/xen/common/trace.c
@@ -834,7 +834,7 @@ void __trace_hypercall(uint32_t event, unsigned long op,
#define APPEND_ARG32(i) \
do { \
- unsigned i_ = (i); \
+ unsigned int i_ = (i); \
*a++ = args[(i_)]; \
d.op |= TRC_PV_HYPERCALL_V2_ARG_32(i_); \
} while( 0 )
--
2.25.1On 27.06.2022 15:15, Michal Orzel wrote: > This is just for the style and consistency reasons as the former is > being used more often than the latter. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@arm.com> It looks like this change was forgotten when merging other patches from the series.
Hi, On 29/06/2022 11:46, Michal Orzel wrote: > On 27.06.2022 15:15, Michal Orzel wrote: >> This is just for the style and consistency reasons as the former is >> being used more often than the latter. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@arm.com> > > It looks like this change was forgotten when merging other patches from the series. I noticed the same and was going to commit it yesterday night. However, it is technically missing an ack/review for trace.c (this is maintained by George). The change is small and likely not controversial. So I guess we could do without George's review. That said, I would like to give him a chance to answer (I will commit it on Friday if there are no answer). Cheers, -- Julien Grall
Hi Julien, > On 29 Jun 2022, at 11:52, Julien Grall <julien@xen.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 29/06/2022 11:46, Michal Orzel wrote: >> On 27.06.2022 15:15, Michal Orzel wrote: >>> This is just for the style and consistency reasons as the former is >>> being used more often than the latter. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@arm.com> >> It looks like this change was forgotten when merging other patches from the series. > > I noticed the same and was going to commit it yesterday night. However, it is technically missing an ack/review for trace.c (this is maintained by George). > > The change is small and likely not controversial. So I guess we could do without George's review. That said, I would like to give him a chance to answer (I will commit it on Friday if there are no answer). Just a gentle ping on this. Cheers Bertrand
On 05/07/2022 13:07, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > Hi Julien, Hi Bertrand, >> On 29 Jun 2022, at 11:52, Julien Grall <julien@xen.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 29/06/2022 11:46, Michal Orzel wrote: >>> On 27.06.2022 15:15, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>> This is just for the style and consistency reasons as the former is >>>> being used more often than the latter. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@arm.com> >>> It looks like this change was forgotten when merging other patches from the series. >> >> I noticed the same and was going to commit it yesterday night. However, it is technically missing an ack/review for trace.c (this is maintained by George). >> >> The change is small and likely not controversial. So I guess we could do without George's review. That said, I would like to give him a chance to answer (I will commit it on Friday if there are no answer). > > Just a gentle ping on this. Thanks for the reminder, the patch is now merged. Cheers, -- Julien Grall
On 27.06.22 15:15, Michal Orzel wrote: > This is just for the style and consistency reasons as the former is > being used more often than the latter. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> Juergen
On 27.06.2022 15:15, Michal Orzel wrote: > This is just for the style and consistency reasons as the former is > being used more often than the latter. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@arm.com> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.