From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix pnpacpi_parse_irq_option()'s test against PNP_IRQ_NR Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: <16399.1214578444@redhat.com> References: <4864ED65.8050009@keyaccess.nl> <4864E2B1.3040308@keyaccess.nl> <20080627123316.8122.15241.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <31574.1214572588@redhat.com> Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:60998 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756196AbYF0OyR (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:54:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4864ED65.8050009@keyaccess.nl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Rene Herman Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, bjorn.helgaas@hp.com, rene.herman@gmail.com, len.brown@intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Rene Herman wrote: > Well, it's been promoted from a u8, so no need for that anyway, but . 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? David