KVM: Replaces 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int' in the codebase
PATCH 1/1 KVM: Replaces 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int' in the codebase
--- virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 10 ++++++---- virt/kvm/irqchip.c | 7 ++++--- virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 16 ++++++++-------- 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
virt/kvm/arm/arm.c +1 -1
@@ -992,7 +992,7 @@ long kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl(struct file *filp,case KVM_GET_REG_LIST : {struct kvm_reg_list __user *user_list = argp;struct kvm_reg_list reg_list; -unsigned n; +unsigned int n;if (unlikely (!kvm_vcpu_initialized (vcpu)))return -ENOEXEC ;
virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c +1 -1
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ static int coalesced_mmio_in_range(struct kvm_coalesced_mmio_dev *dev,static int coalesced_mmio_has_room (struct kvm_coalesced_mmio_dev *dev) {struct kvm_coalesced_mmio_ring *ring; -unsigned avail; +unsigned int avail;/* Are we able to batch it ? */
virt/kvm/eventfd.c +6 -4
@@ -184,14 +184,14 @@ int __attribute__((weak)) kvm_arch_set_irq_inatomic(* Called with wqh->lock held and interrupts disabled */ static int -irqfd_wakeup (wait_queue_entry_t *wait,unsigned mode,int sync,void *key) +irqfd_wakeup (wait_queue_entry_t *wait,unsigned int mode,int sync,void *key) {struct kvm_kernel_irqfd *irqfd = container_of(wait, struct kvm_kernel_irqfd, wait);unsigned long flags = (unsigned long )key;struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry irq;struct kvm *kvm = irqfd->kvm; -unsigned seq; +unsigned int seq;int idx;if (flags &POLLIN ) {
@@ -440,7 +440,8 @@ kvm_irqfd_assign(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_irqfd *args)return ret; } -bool kvm_irq_has_notifier (struct kvm *kvm,unsigned irqchip,unsigned pin) +bool kvm_irq_has_notifier (struct kvm *kvm,unsigned int irqchip, +unsigned int pin) {struct kvm_irq_ack_notifier *kian;int gsi, idx;
@@ -471,7 +472,8 @@ void kvm_notify_acked_gsi(struct kvm *kvm, int gsi) kian->irq_acked (kian); } -void kvm_notify_acked_irq (struct kvm *kvm,unsigned irqchip,unsigned pin) +void kvm_notify_acked_irq (struct kvm *kvm,unsigned int irqchip, +unsigned int pin) {int gsi, idx;
virt/kvm/irqchip.c +4 -3
@@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ int kvm_irq_map_gsi(struct kvm *kvm,return n; } -int kvm_irq_map_chip_pin (struct kvm *kvm,unsigned irqchip,unsigned pin) +int kvm_irq_map_chip_pin (struct kvm *kvm,unsigned int irqchip, +unsigned int pin) {struct kvm_irq_routing_table *irq_rt;
@@ -179,8 +180,8 @@ bool __weak kvm_arch_can_set_irq_routing(struct kvm *kvm)int kvm_set_irq_routing (struct kvm *kvm,const struct kvm_irq_routing_entry *ue, -unsigned nr, -unsigned flags) +unsigned int nr, +unsigned int flags) {struct kvm_irq_routing_table *new, *old;struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *e;
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c +8 -8
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ void vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (vcpu_put);/* TODO: merge with kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick */ -static bool kvm_request_needs_ipi (struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,unsigned req) +static bool kvm_request_needs_ipi (struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,unsigned int req) {int mode =kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode (vcpu);
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ void kvm_reload_remote_mmus(struct kvm *kvm)kvm_make_all_cpus_request (kvm,KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD ); } -int kvm_vcpu_init (struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,struct kvm *kvm,unsigned id) +int kvm_vcpu_init (struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,struct kvm *kvm,unsigned int id) {struct page *page;int r;
@@ -2230,7 +2230,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_kick(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)return ; me =get_cpu (); -if (cpu != me && (unsigned )cpu < nr_cpu_ids &&cpu_online (cpu)) +if (cpu != me && (unsigned int )cpu < nr_cpu_ids &&cpu_online (cpu))if (kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick (vcpu))smp_send_reschedule (cpu);put_cpu ();
@@ -3766,7 +3766,7 @@ static const struct file_operations *stat_fops_per_vm[] = {static int vm_stat_get (void *_offset,u64 *val) { -unsigned offset = (long )_offset; +unsigned int offset = (long )_offset;struct kvm *kvm;struct kvm_stat_data stat_tmp = {.offset = offset};u64 tmp_val;
@@ -3784,7 +3784,7 @@ static int vm_stat_get(void *_offset, u64 *val)static int vm_stat_clear (void *_offset,u64 val) { -unsigned offset = (long )_offset; +unsigned int offset = (long )_offset;struct kvm *kvm;struct kvm_stat_data stat_tmp = {.offset = offset};
@@ -3805,7 +3805,7 @@ DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vm_stat_fops, vm_stat_get, vm_stat_clear, "%llu\n");static int vcpu_stat_get (void *_offset,u64 *val) { -unsigned offset = (long )_offset; +unsigned int offset = (long )_offset;struct kvm *kvm;struct kvm_stat_data stat_tmp = {.offset = offset};u64 tmp_val;
@@ -3823,7 +3823,7 @@ static int vcpu_stat_get(void *_offset, u64 *val)static int vcpu_stat_clear (void *_offset,u64 val) { -unsigned offset = (long )_offset; +unsigned int offset = (long )_offset;struct kvm *kvm;struct kvm_stat_data stat_tmp = {.offset = offset};
@@ -3921,7 +3921,7 @@ static void kvm_sched_out(struct preempt_notifier *pn,kvm_arch_vcpu_put (vcpu); } -int kvm_init (void *opaque,unsigned vcpu_size,unsigned vcpu_align, +int kvm_init (void *opaque,unsigned int vcpu_size,unsigned int vcpu_align,struct module *module) {int r;
Signature · 1 line
2.7.4
Paolo Bonzini
maintainerQuoted 8 lines · Roman Storozhenko
Signed-off-by Roman Storozhenko <[email protected]>--- virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 10 ++++++---- virt/kvm/irqchip.c | 7 ++++--- virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 16 ++++++++-------- 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
This change is pointless. Contributors to KVM should know what "unsigned" means.
Paolo
Quoted 12 lines · Paolo Bonzini
Quoted 8 lines · Roman Storozhenko
Signed-off-by Roman Storozhenko <[email protected]>--- virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 10 ++++++---- virt/kvm/irqchip.c | 7 ++++--- virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 16 ++++++++-------- 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
Quoted 2 lines
This change is pointless. Contributors to KVM should know what "unsigned" means.
Paolo, thanks that you mentioned this. But I have a question - is this just useless or this is an error?
I saw many places in the codebase where 'unsigned int' is used. That why I decided to make the codebase more standartized from the style point of view.
Thanks, Roman Storozhenko.
Quoted 11 lines · Roman Storozhenko
Quoted 10 lines · Paolo Bonzini
Quoted 8 lines · Roman Storozhenko
Signed-off-by Roman Storozhenko <[email protected]>--- virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 10 ++++++---- virt/kvm/irqchip.c | 7 ++++--- virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 16 ++++++++-------- 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
This change is pointless. Contributors to KVM should know what "unsigned" means.
Paolo, thanks that you mentioned this. But I have a question - is this just useless or this is an error?
(Not Paulo and my 2c) Neither really.
Quoted 3 lines
I saw many places in the codebase where 'unsigned int' is used. That why I decided to make the codebase more standartized from the style point of view.
In virt/kvm, there are 16 lines with unsigned, 160 with unsigned int
<shrug>, Both statements are correct, yes, it's kinda pointless, and, yes, it does standardize the declarations.
It's entirely up the the maintainers (Paulo and Radim) to apply or reject this style-only trivial patch. The compiler doesn't care.
Quoted 24 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 11 lines · Roman Storozhenko
Quoted 10 lines · Paolo Bonzini
Quoted 8 lines · Roman Storozhenko
Signed-off-by Roman Storozhenko <[email protected]>--- virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c | 2 +- virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 10 ++++++---- virt/kvm/irqchip.c | 7 ++++--- virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 16 ++++++++-------- 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
This change is pointless. Contributors to KVM should know what "unsigned" means.
Paolo, thanks that you mentioned this. But I have a question - is this just useless or this is an error?
(Not Paulo and my 2c) Neither really.
Quoted 3 lines
I saw many places in the codebase where 'unsigned int' is used. That why I decided to make the codebase more standartized from the style point of view.
Quoted 8 lines
In
virt/kvm, there are 16 lines with unsigned, 160 with unsigned int<shrug>, Both statements are correct, yes, it's kinda pointless, and, yes, it does standardize the declarations.
It's entirely up the the maintainers (Paulo and Radim) to apply or reject this style-only trivial patch. The compiler doesn't care.
Joe, thank you for your detailed answer.
Anyway I hope that this patch will be accepted despite it is useless from the compiler's point of view. I think that the codebase style matters too.