On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 01:10:00PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:00:24PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > 421 for (i = 0; i < DEVICE_COUNT_RESOURCE; i++) {
> > 422 if (!(mask & (1 << i)))
> > 423 continue;
> >
> > Probably maks is always valid is what helps us but basically the static
> > checker is suggesting that instead of DEVICE_COUNT_RESOURCE we should
> > be using PCI_ROM_RESOURCE or PCIM_IOMAP_MAX. It could be that this was
> > deliberate though...
>
> Looks like a silly mistake on my part. Care to submit a patch?
>
Sure, I will do that.
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
