On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Matthew Wilcox<matthew@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 12:06:59PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Roel Kluin<roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Check whether index is within bounds before testing the element. >> >> The change is correct but: >> - There are other places in the code with that construct. Even though >> they wouldn't trigger an overflow, why not fixing them too? >> - Keep the likely: we are more likely to run out of data in the layers >> than to exhaust the counter (which is why no overflow was ever >> triggered, I believe ;-) > > No, lose the likely. It's a for-loop; gcc will do the right thing. I stand corrected then. ;-) Thanks willy. T-Bone -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
