Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:36:49 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Cc: rmk+serial@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       ralf@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: serial_txx9 driver update
Message-Id: <20060121233649.51211403.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060118.021901.71085469.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
References: <20060118.021901.71085469.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1050
Lines: 23

Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>  serial_txx9_verify_port(struct uart_port *port, struct serial_struct *ser)
>   {
>  -	if (ser->irq < 0 ||
>  -	    ser->baud_base < 9600 || ser->type != PORT_TXX9)
>  +	unsigned long new_port = (unsigned long)ser->port +
>  +		((unsigned long)ser->port_high << ((sizeof(long) - sizeof(int)) * 8));

Are you sure about this part?  Shifting something left by sizeof(something)
seems very strange.  It'll give different results on 64-bit machines for
the same hardware.  Are you sure it wasn't supposed to be an addition?

If this was indeed intended then can you please explain why?

If it was supposed to be an addition, wouldn't this be more clearly
expressed by defining a suitable structure and using sizeof(that structure)
to work out the address range?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/