[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4725B045.80705@garzik.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:04:53 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
CC: pcnet32@...izon.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pcnet: fix sparse triviality
Auke Kok wrote:
> Since data can never exceed u32, it can't even be larger than LONG_MAX/HZ.
>
> Signed-off-by: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
> Cc: pcnet32@...izon.net
> ---
>
> drivers/net/pcnet32.c | 5 ++---
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/pcnet32.c b/drivers/net/pcnet32.c
> index ff92aca..3573e77 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/pcnet32.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/pcnet32.c
> @@ -1101,9 +1101,8 @@ static int pcnet32_phys_id(struct net_device *dev, u32 data)
> mod_timer(&lp->blink_timer, jiffies);
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> - /* AV: the limit here makes no sense whatsoever */
> - if ((!data) || (data > (u32) (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ)))
> - data = (u32) (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ);
> + if (!data)
> + data = INT_MAX;
>
> msleep_interruptible(data * 1000);
> del_timer_sync(&lp->blink_timer);
Two comments:
1) I would prefer to pick a sane limit, like "1 day". The unit of
'data' is seconds, so IMO we should not allow stupid timeouts, much less
INT_MAX ones :) But hey, then again, maybe we should permit root to
hang themselves with own rope...
2) [tangent] someone really should add the obvious ssleep_interruptible()
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists