Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> writes: > On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:06:54 +0200 Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@c-s.fr> > wrote: >> Le 14/06/2019 à 21:00, Andrew Morton a écrit : >> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this >> >> consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with >> >> memory block ids next. >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> - int i, ret, section_count = 0; >> >> + unsigned long i; >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> - unsigned int i; >> >> + unsigned long i; >> > >> > Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the >> > expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int". ... >> Codying style says the following, which makes full sense in my opinion: >> >> LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point. If you have >> some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``. >> Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it >> being mis-understood. > > Well. It did say "integer". Calling an unsigned long `i' is flat out > misleading.
I always thought `i` was for loop `index` not `integer`. But I've never written any Fortran :) cheers
