[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types

From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:36:39 +0100

On 10 July 2012 21:01, Blue Swirl <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 10 July 2012 20:18, Blue Swirl <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> There is no consensus.  I recognize the power of maintainers to force a
>>>> change even without consensus.  Use it wisely.
>>> I thought I refuted all concrete arguments except performance.
>> No, you made various claims that Markus and I at least
>> disagreed with. (Conversely, we have made various claims
>> that you disagree with -- this is what "no consensus" means...)
> You did not present any concrete arguments. In this review you have
> pointed at bugs in the assert() expression, thanks.

No, a bug in your assert is an indication of why there are
downsides to making random changes, not a concrete argument
against making the changes. The major problem here
is (a) there is no really good reason to make this change
(b) it's moving away from the existing tested code we have
(and that the kernel has). Basically 'int' has more natural
behaviour for reasoning about than 'unsigned' in ranges
where it's usually used (ie small ones).

-- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]