[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080807111216.6cfdbeea@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:12:16 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Dhaval Giani" <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Mike Travis" <travis@....com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/33] dyn_array and nr_irqs support v4
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:02:18 -0700
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
>
> > A lot of these are range checks so could be replaced by a single
> > valid_irq(irq) test.
>
> Yes. My first impression was that with NR_IRQS dead valid_irq could
> easily become. #define valid_irq(irq) ((irq) != 0)
Not really - there are lots of cases where we sanity check an IRQ passed
from user space or module parameter configuration. So we do actually need
valid_irq(irq) ((irq) > 0 && (irq) < nr_irqs)
[or relevant per arch alternatives]
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists