Hello,

While making some updates to our code base for 22.11.1 that were missed in
our first pass through, we hit the numa node change[1].  In the process of
updating our code, we noticed that a couple functions (rx/tx_queue_setup,
maybe more that we aren't using) state they accept `SOCKET_ID_ANY` but the
function signature then asks for an unsigned integer while `SOCKET_ID_ANY`
is `-1`.  Following it through the redirect to the "real" function it also
asks for an unsigned integer which is then passed on to one or more
functions asking for an integer.  As an example using the the i40e driver
-- we would call `rte_eth_tx_queue_setup` [2] which ultimately calls
`i40e_dev_tx_queue_setup`[3] which finally calls `rte_zmalloc_socket`[4]
and `rte_eth_dma_zone_reserve`[5].

I guess what I am looking for is clarification on if this is intentional or
if this is additional cleanup that may need to be completed/be desirable so
that signs are maintained through the call paths and avoid potentially
producing sign-conversion warnings.  From the very quick glance I took at
the i40e driver, it seems these are just passed through to other functions
and no direct use/manipulation occurs (at least in the mentioned functions).

1)
https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20221004145850.32331-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com/
2)
https://doc.dpdk.org/api/rte__ethdev_8h.html#a796c2f20778984c6f41b271e36bae50e
3) https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/main/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c#L1949
4)
https://doc.dpdk.org/api/rte__malloc_8h.html#a7e9f76b7e0b0921a617c6ab8b28f53b3
5)
https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/1094dd940ec0cc4e3ce2c5cd94807350855a17f9/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h#L1566