但是 Linus Torvalds 卻還是認為有留下檢查的必要，底下是他的回覆：
No, please don’t.
The warning is sometimes useful, but when it comes to a construct like
if (a < 0 || a > X)
the fact that “a” is unsigned does not make the construct silly. First off, it’s (a) very readable and (b) the type of “a” may not be immediately obvious if it’s a user typedef, for example.
In fact, the type of “a” might depend on the architecture, or even compiler flags. Think about “char” – which may or may not be signed depending on ABI and things like -funsigned-char.
In other places, it’s not “unsigned” that is the problem, but the fact that the range of a type is smaller on one architecture than another. So you might have
inf fn(pid_t a)
if (a > 0xffff)
which might warn on an architecture where “pid_t” is just sixteen bits wide. Does that make the code wrong? Hell no.
IOW, a lot of the gcc warnings are just not valid, and trying to shut gcc
It’s not even that I will drop the patches, it’s literally that “fixing” the code so that gcc doesn’t complain can be a BUG. We’ve gone through that.