Re: [patch -next] bcma: signedness bug in bcma_get_next_core()

Am 20.08.2011 14:23, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:

W dniu 18 sierpnia 2011 15:38 użytkownik Dan Carpenter
[off-list ref] napisał:

quoted

The u32 would never be less than zero so the error handling would
break.  I changed it to int.

In declaration we use s32:
static s32 bcma_erom_get_mst_port(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 **eromptr);

Doesn't it sound better to use s32 instead of int?

aktualy int sounds better that s32 for me.

re,
 wh