Re: [PATCH] Fix pnpacpi_parse_irq_option()'s test against PNP_IRQ_NR

[Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>]

On 27-06-08 17:26, Rene Herman wrote:

> On 27-06-08 16:54, David Howells wrote:
> 
>> Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, it's been promoted from a u8, so no need for that anyway,
>>> but <shrug>.
>> 
>> My logic is that in commit 95b24192cf27631dc11541e97c430389320e7a93
>> it says the following:
>> 
>> ACPI Extended Interrupt Descriptors can encode 32-bit interrupt 
>> numbers, so an interrupt number may exceed the size of the bitmap 
>> we use to track possible IRQ settings.
>> 
>> so the field in 'struct acpi_resource_irq' might at some point 
>> increase to be a 32-bit unsigned value.  Otherwise there's no point
>> having the check at all, right?

(as an aside, we conceptually don't know what PNP_IRQ_NR is -- why the 
define otherwise -- so the check in itself still makes some sense here 
as well).

> Ah, how lovely, there has been a merge error at some point...
> 
> No, that larger value would live in a struct acpi_resource_extended_irq. 
> This code was supposed to go in pnpacpi_parse_ext_irq_option() instead.
> 
> Here's the original posting of this patch:
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/30/390
> 
> where it indeed is. Here is the last one, where it has mistakingly 
> shifted position to pnpacpi_parse_irq_option():
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/17/337
> 
> I was already wondering why I hadn't see that warning myself while I was 
> testing things...
> 
> Bjorn?

Rene.