[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160218232136.GB11796@linux-mips.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:21:36 +0100
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To: Insu Yun <wuninsu@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Taesoo Kim <taesoo@...ech.edu>,
Yeongjin Jang <yeongjin.jang@...ech.edu>,
"Yun, Insu" <insu@...ech.edu>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...ech.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rose: correct integer overflow check
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 04:03:16PM -0500, Insu Yun wrote:
>
> Because of the types on the right hand side of the comparison
> the expressions are all promoted to unsigned.
>
> Did you look at the compiler's assembler output? I did when
> reviewing your patch.
>
>
> I checked the assembler output right now.
> You are right.
> I realized that right hand side becomes unsigned due to sizeof.
> I think this patch is wrong.
> Thanks.
On a different level, the current whole approach of ROSE to just generate
a fixed number of devices at initialization time of ROSE is if not wrong
then at least very archaic. The default number is 10 devices and probably
of those 9 are unused on a typical setup - that is, if the module has
been loaded intentionally at all.
As a solution I've implemented a patch to support creating of ROSE
devices through netlink plus the necessary changes to iproute2 to go
along with that.
Ralf
Powered by blists - more mailing lists