Re: [PATCH v7 12/16] hw/pci: Replace -1 with UINT32_MAX for romsize

[Markus Armbruster]

Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com> writes:

> romsize is an uint32_t variable. Specifying -1 as an uint32_t value is
> obscure way to denote UINT32_MAX.
>
> Worse, if int is wider than 32-bit, it will change the behavior of a
> construct like the following:
> romsize = -1;
> if (romsize != -1) {
>     ...
> }
>
> When -1 is assigned to romsize, -1 will be implicitly casted into
> uint32_t, resulting in UINT32_MAX. On contrary, when evaluating
> romsize != -1, romsize will be casted into int, and it will be a
> comparison of UINT32_MAX and -1, and result in false.
>
> Fix these issues by replacing -1 with UINT32_MAX for statements
> involving the variable.

Could be viewed as cleanup instead of fix, given how unlikely int wider
than 32 bits is.  Observation, not a demand :)

> Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>

Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>