Hi Dmitry,
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:54:37 -0800 you wrote:
>
> which happens because port_array[] is u8 so after integer promotion
> the value is between 0 - 255 (no sign extension happens) but we
> compare it with -1.
>
>
> As far as I can see this is a real issue, still compiled only at this
> time.
>
<snip>
> */
> if (xhci->port_array[i] != major_revision &&
> - xhci->port_array[i] != (u8) -1) {
> + xhci->port_array[i] != XHCI_PORT_IGNORE) {
> if (xhci->port_array[i] == 0x03)
> xhci->num_usb3_ports--;
> else
> xhci->num_usb2_ports--;
> - xhci->port_array[i] = (u8) -1;
> + xhci->port_array[i] = XHCI_PORT_IGNORE;
> }
I think you're misreading it. The lines you've replaced are comparing
against "(u8) -1", which is the value -1 but cast to a u8. The result
is the same 0xFF that you've replaced it with.
Not that an explicit #define isn't better, but the patch should not be
described as fixing a bug when all it does is tidy up the code.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
