Re: ate_resource->lowest_free_index signed or unsigned?

[Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>]

Roel Kluin wrote:
> Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> Roel Kluin wrote:
>>> lowest_free_index is unsigned, but in alloc_ate_resource() and
>>> free_ate_resource() it is treated as signed
>> I don't thing it's a big issue to be honest, it just means the tests for
>> lowest_free_index < 0 are no-ops. I would be fine with a patch that
>> changes it to signed.
> 
> Ok, How's this? If my changelog is not clear feel free to amend it.

Hi Roel,

Please make it 'long' or 's64' to keep the size in the struct.

Cheers,
Jes


> ------------------------------>8-------------8<---------------------------------
> unsigned lowest_free_index was set in alloc_ate_resource() with the return
> value of find_free_ate(), which is -1 when no free ate is found. Since
> unsigned, a lowest_free_index of -1, `ate exhaustion', would then not be noticed
> in a subsequent call to alloc_ate_resource().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/ia64/include/asm/sn/pcibr_provider.h b/arch/ia64/include/asm/sn/pcibr_provider.h
> index da205b7..b3133ef 100644
> --- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/sn/pcibr_provider.h
> +++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/sn/pcibr_provider.h
> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@
>  struct ate_resource{
>  	u64 *ate;
>  	u64 num_ate;
> -	u64 lowest_free_index;
> +	int lowest_free_index;
>  };
>  
>  struct pcibus_info {