On 27-06-08 17:26, Rene Herman wrote:
On 27-06-08 16:54, David Howells wrote:
Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, it's been promoted from a u8, so no need for that anyway,
but <shrug>.
My logic is that in commit 95b24192cf27631dc11541e97c430389320e7a93
it says the following:
ACPI Extended Interrupt Descriptors can encode 32-bit interrupt
numbers, so an interrupt number may exceed the size of the bitmap
we use to track possible IRQ settings.
so the field in 'struct acpi_resource_irq' might at some point
increase to be a 32-bit unsigned value. Otherwise there's no point
having the check at all, right?
(as an aside, we conceptually don't know what PNP_IRQ_NR is -- why the
define otherwise -- so the check in itself still makes some sense here
as well).
Ah, how lovely, there has been a merge error at some point...
No, that larger value would live in a struct acpi_resource_extended_irq.
This code was supposed to go in pnpacpi_parse_ext_irq_option() instead.
Here's the original posting of this patch:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/30/390
where it indeed is. Here is the last one, where it has mistakingly
shifted position to pnpacpi_parse_irq_option():
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/17/337
I was already wondering why I hadn't see that warning myself while I was
testing things...
Bjorn?
Rene.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
