>Ah, yes, that looks wrong. Looks like the check for (seg > 255) came
>from the original pci_sal_read(). The original pci_sal_ext_read() did
>check for (seg > 65535). My bad.
>
>Thanks for catching this.
So you (and Matthew Wilcox) are advocating this change?
===== arch/ia64/pci/pci.c 1.66 vs edited =====
--- 1.66/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c 2005-01-22 14:42:51 -08:00
+++ edited/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c 2005-01-25 12:42:49 -08:00
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
u64 addr, mode, data = 0;
int result = 0;
- if ((seg > 255) || (bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095))
+ if ((seg > 65535) || (bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095))
return -EINVAL;
if ((seg | reg) <= 255) {
"seg", "bus", etc. are all "int" ... should we be extra paranoid
and check for negative values (or change the definitions to unsigned),
or is that over the top?
-Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
