Also, isn't the single use of multi_msi_capable() broken (in the event that the Multiple Message Capable field was 5, the shift would be undefined, on x86 in particular would yield 1 as the result, where 0 would be needed), and the subsequent twiddling of temp needlessly complicated (subtracting one should be sufficient here). Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/pci/msi.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- linux-2.6.28-rc4/drivers/pci/msi.c 2008-11-11 11:11:20.000000000 +0100 +++ 2.6.28-rc4-pci-multi-msi-capable/drivers/pci/msi.c 2008-11-07 09:11:36.000000000 +0100 @@ -389,9 +389,8 @@ static int msi_capability_init(struct pc pci_read_config_dword(dev, msi_mask_bits_reg(pos, entry->msi_attrib.is_64), &maskbits); - temp = (1 << multi_msi_capable(control)); - temp = ((temp - 1) & ~temp); - maskbits |= temp; + temp = 1U << (multi_msi_capable(control) - 1); + maskbits |= (temp << 1) - 1; pci_write_config_dword(dev, entry->msi_attrib.is_64, maskbits); entry->msi_attrib.maskbits_mask = temp; } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
