[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 21:15:54 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
CC: Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] ACPI / processor: Introduce invalid_logical_cpuid()
On 2015年05月05日 20:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 12:15:13 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>> On 05/05/15 03:46, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> In ACPI processor drivers, we use direct comparisons of cpu logical
>>> id with -1 which are error prone in case logical cpuid is accidentally
>>> assinged an error code and prevents us from returning an error-encoding
>>> cpuid directly in some cases.
>>>
>>> So introduce invalid_logical_cpuid() to identify cpu with invalid
>>> logical cpu num, then it will be used to replace the direct comparisons
>>> with -1.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, OK I see that this fixes the issue I raised in PATCH 1/7, so I think
>> you need to reorder this and 1/7 patch IMO.
>
> Well, comparing an unsigned int with -1 is not technically invalid (although it
> involves an implicit type conversion), but yes, Hanjun, please reorder the
> patches.
Sure, I will.
Thanks
Hanjun
--
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