Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:44:35 +0000
From:   David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/23] arm64: Make cpu_logical_map() take unsigned int
Message-ID: <20201202154435.qpr7ow53xra3xjkd@google.com>
References: <20201126155421.14901-1-dbrazdil@google.com>
 <20201126155421.14901-4-dbrazdil@google.com>
 <20201126172838.GD38486@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201126172838.GD38486@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 05:28:38PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 03:54:01PM +0000, David Brazdil wrote:
> > CPU index should never be negative. Change the signature of
> > (set_)cpu_logical_map to take an unsigned int.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> 
> Is there a function problem here, or is this just cleanup from
> inspection?
> 
> Core code including the cpuhp_*() callbacks uses an int, so if there's a
> strong justification to change this, it suggests there's some treewide
> cleanup that should be done.
> 
> I don't have strong feelings on the matter, but I'd like to understand
> the rationale.

Yeah, it's a mess. Marc and I felt that using a uint was less error-prone wrt
bounds checks. If this gets an int, it still works and only checking the upper
bound is required. Does that make sense?

David