On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 21:20 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Sorry, I should have said that I am on linux-next at the start.
>
> > > -static u8 pci_cap_length[] = {
> > > +static u8 pci_cap_length[PCI_CAP_ID_MAX + 1] = {
> > > [PCI_CAP_ID_BASIC] = PCI_STD_HEADER_SIZEOF, /* pci config header */
> > > [PCI_CAP_ID_PM] = PCI_PM_SIZEOF,
> > > [PCI_CAP_ID_AGP] = PCI_AGP_SIZEOF,
> >
> > This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The last entry we define
> > is:
> >
> > [PCI_CAP_ID_AF] = PCI_CAP_AF_SIZEOF,
>
> Yes.
>
> > };
> >
> > and PCI_CAP_ID_MAX is defined as:
> >
> > #define PCI_CAP_ID_MAX PCI_CAP_ID_AF
>
> No. I am on linux-next and we appear to have added a new element
> beyond PCI_CAP_ID_AF.
>
> #define PCI_CAP_ID_AF 0x13 /* PCI Advanced Features */
> #define PCI_CAP_ID_EA 0x14 /* PCI Enhanced Allocation */
> #define PCI_CAP_ID_MAX PCI_CAP_ID_EA
>
> >
> > So the array is implicitly sized to PCI_CAP_ID_MAX + 1 already, this
> > doesn't make it any larger.
>
> In linux-next it makes it larger. But also explicitly using
> PCI_CAP_ID_MAX + 1 is cleaner as well as fixing the bug in case we add
> more elements later again.
Ok, all the pieces line up now. Please add mention of that to the
commit log and I'll look for the respin including the same for
pci_ext_cap_length. Thanks for spotting this!
Alex
--
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
