Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752274Ab0AUPux (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:50:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751955Ab0AUPuw (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:50:52 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:39411 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751973Ab0AUPuv (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:50:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:49:17 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Yinghai Lu cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Jesse Barnes , Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/36] x86/pci: add cap_resource In-Reply-To: <1264055303-15123-5-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> Message-ID: References: <1264055303-15123-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1264055303-15123-5-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1415 Lines: 53 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. > +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? Linus -- 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/