On 01/21/2010 07:49 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> >> -v2: hpa said we should compare with (resource_size_t)~0 > > Hmm. Some of these look dubious. > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/bus_numa.c b/arch/x86/pci/bus_numa.c >> index f939d60..b267919 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/pci/bus_numa.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/bus_numa.c >> @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ void __devinit update_res(struct pci_root_info *info, size_t start, >> if (start > end) >> return; >> >> + if (start == (resource_size_t)~0) >> + return; > > Here, 'start' isn't a resource_size_t. It's a regular size_t. And if > resource_size_t is u64, and size_t is u32, this test can never be true. > > Maybe that is intentional, but if looks odd/wrong. Needs a comment if > right, needs fixing if wrong. you are right, there are two patches about that already went into pci/linux-next will ask Jesse to drop them from pci tree. so could make them go via tip/x86 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/jbarnes/pci-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=f84fe8aef6e4b23ab58175a15dd12c197c993f81 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/jbarnes/pci-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=693f084f82a38fc1b01e3b05664a6fe014a3488a or later may have merge problem. > >> +static inline resource_size_t cap_resource(u64 val) >> +{ >> + if (val > (resource_size_t)~0) >> + return (resource_size_t)~0; >> + else >> + return val; >> +} >> #endif > > And this just looks odd. I'd suggest just doing > > #define MAX_RESOURCE ((resource_size_t)~0) > > static inline resource_size_t cap_resource(u64 val) > { > if (val > MAX_RESOURCE) > val = MAX_RESOURCE; > return val; > } > > instead, which looks a whole lot more natural. No? OK Yinghai -- 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
