[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:42:32 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] x86/pci: use u64 instead of size_t in amd_bus.c
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/11/2009 03:35 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> prepare to enable it for 32bit
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
>>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/pci/amd_bus.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/amd_bus.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/pci/amd_bus.c
>> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/amd_bus.c
>> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ static int __init early_fill_mp_bus_info
>> struct pci_root_info *info;
>> u32 reg;
>> struct resource *res;
>> - size_t start;
>> - size_t end;
>> + u64 start;
>> + u64 end;
>> struct range range[RANGE_NUM];
>> u64 val;
>> u32 address;
>>
>
> Shouldn't this be resource_size_t?
it seems we should use u64, and check the if the sizeof(resource_size_t) != sizeof(u64)
and cap some vale.
YH
--
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