From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from gofer.mess.org ([80.229.237.210]:36585 "EHLO gofer.mess.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751993AbbFEPAp (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-media@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:00:45 -0400
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:00:43 +0100
From: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
	David =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4rdeman?= <david@hardeman.nu>,
	Himangi Saraogi <himangi774@gmail.com>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] [media] ir: Fix IR_MAX_DURATION enforcement
Message-ID: <20150605150043.GA3245@gofer.mess.org>
References: <cover.1433514004.git.mchehab@osg.samsung.com>
 <3de7135934d936e630a39a047bdf731a51713dd4.1433514004.git.mchehab@osg.samsung.com>
 <20150605145538.GA3076@gofer.mess.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150605145538.GA3076@gofer.mess.org>
Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-media.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 03:55:38PM +0100, Sean Young wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:27:41AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Don't assume that IR_MAX_DURATION is a bitmask. It isn't.
> 
> The patch is right, but note that IR_MAX_DURATION is 0xffffffff, and in
> all these cases it is being compared to a u32, so it is always false.
> 
> Should these statements simply be removed? None of the other drivers
> do these checks.

Sorry please ignore me, I should have read the whole patch series. :(


Sean