On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:21:00AM +0200, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 29.05.2013 09:02, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> > Static checkers complain that this is declared as an unsigned long
> > but we only ever use the low 32 bits (ignoring sign expansion).
> > But from the context, it should just be an unsigned short.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-renesas-tpu.c b/drivers/leds/leds-renesas-tpu.c
> > index 9483f1c..fe1fbd0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-renesas-tpu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-renesas-tpu.c
> > @@ -93,7 +93,8 @@ static inline void r_tpu_write(struct r_tpu_priv *p, int reg_nr,
> > static void r_tpu_start_stop_ch(struct r_tpu_priv *p, int start)
> > {
> > struct led_renesas_tpu_config *cfg = p->pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > - unsigned long flags, value;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + unsigned short value;
> >
>
>
> When it is using the lower 32bit may "int" is better ?
The static checkers think it's using the lower 32 bits, but it's
actually using the lower 16 bits.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
