From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rene Herman Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix pnpacpi_parse_irq_option()'s test against PNP_IRQ_NR Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:38:47 +0200 Message-ID: <48650987.7090103@keyaccess.nl> References: <4864ED65.8050009@keyaccess.nl> <4864E2B1.3040308@keyaccess.nl> <20080627123316.8122.15241.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <31574.1214572588@redhat.com> <16399.1214578444@redhat.com> <486506A4.7060605@keyaccess.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtpq2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl ([213.51.146.201]:59799 "EHLO smtpq2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753876AbYF0PiG (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:38:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <486506A4.7060605@keyaccess.nl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Cc: bjorn.helgaas@hp.com, rene.herman@gmail.com, len.brown@intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 27-06-08 17:26, Rene Herman wrote: > On 27-06-08 16:54, David Howells wrote: > >> 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? (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.