Re: [PATCH] serial: 8250_omap: fix a timeout loop condition

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:33:29PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:53:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 02:41:06PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:46:07AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

Why would I make it unsigned?  As a static analysis developer,
pointlessly unsigned variables are one of the leading causes for the
bugs I see.

There are times where a iterator counter needs to be unsigned long, or
u64 but I have never seen a case where changing an iterator from
"int i;" to "unsigned int i;" solves a real life kernel bug.  It only
introduces bugs.

See my followup to that, I meant

unsigned int count;

do {
	...
} while (--count);

It doesn't solve bug, but prevents the code be read incorrectly like what you
are fixing can be avoided with do {} while (); along with unsigned type.

Why would you use an unsigned int for this???

Why it should be signed? You clearly show the amount of iterations. Check for
null I guess even compact in the assembly in comparison to -1.

I do not see any point why it should be signed. For what purpose?

It's a *down* counter.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko