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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1635391292-2879179-1-git-send-email-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
In-Reply-To: <1635391292-2879179-1-git-send-email-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 18:08:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iGmVRjwDTUPvfWcf_3t=NHLT_t-dN_4TX2N3-LxJX_Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: Fix implicit type conversion
To:     Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Cc:     "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amitk@kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 5:22 AM Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn> wrote:
>
> The parameter 'cpu' is defined as unsigned int.
> However in the cpumask_next() it is implicitly type conversed
> to int.
> It is universally accepted that the implicit type conversion is
> terrible.
> Also, having the good programming custom will set an example for
> others.
> Thus, it might be better to change the type of 'cpu' from
> unsigned int to int.
>
> Fixes: 3e8c4d3 ("drivers: thermal: Move various drivers for intel platforms into a subdir")
> Signed-off-by: Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> index b0eb5ec..ed46b5e 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> @@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ static int powerclamp_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static int powerclamp_cpu_predown(unsigned int cpu)
> +static int powerclamp_cpu_predown(int cpu)
>  {
>         if (clamping == false)
>                 return 0;
> --

I'm not going to consider any patches of this type, because IMO they
are not improvements.

Thanks!