Re: [PATCH] posix-clock: Use an unsigned data type for a variable

[SF Markus Elfring]

>>>> Reuse the type from this poll call instead.
>>>
>>> Why use uint when the function return type it unsigned int?
>>
>> Do you prefer to express the type modifier once more there?
> 
> I don't know what the sentence means,

Can it be a matter of taste if the key word "unsigned" should be repeated
in such an use case?


> but I think that the type should be referenced in a consistent manner.

How do involved software designers and developers prefer to achieve
data type consistency here?

Which kind of naming convention will get priority?


>>> On the other hand, why is the function return type unsigned int
>>> when there is a return of a negative constant?
>>
>> This implementation detail can trigger further software development
>> considerations, can't it?
> 
> It would seem reasonable to address all of the signed/unsigned issues 
> related to the function return value at once.

Would you like to extend another evolving script for the semantic patch language?


I imagine that the general issue around the exception handling will cause
too many software development challenges to tackle them "at once".

Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/