On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 07:32:05AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 12:37 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 05:27:16PM +0100, Walter Harms wrote:
> > > Am 16.02.2019 15:44, schrieb Colin King:
> > > > From: Colin Ian King
> > > >
> > > > Currently m_sg->
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 12:37 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 05:27:16PM +0100, Walter Harms wrote:
> > Am 16.02.2019 15:44, schrieb Colin King:
> > > From: Colin Ian King
> > >
> > > Currently m_sg->baseaddr_h (a 32 bit unsigned int) is being
> > > shifted by a
> > > total of
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 05:27:16PM +0100, Walter Harms wrote:
> Am 16.02.2019 15:44, schrieb Colin King:
> > From: Colin Ian King
> >
> > Currently m_sg->baseaddr_h (a 32 bit unsigned int) is being shifted by a
> > total of 32 bits; this always produces a 0 result. Fix this by casting
> > it to
Am 16.02.2019 15:44, schrieb Colin King:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> Currently m_sg->baseaddr_h (a 32 bit unsigned int) is being shifted by a
> total of 32 bits; this always produces a 0 result. Fix this by casting
> it to a dma_addr_t (a 64 bit unsigned int) before performing the shift.
>
> Det
From: Colin Ian King
Currently m_sg->baseaddr_h (a 32 bit unsigned int) is being shifted by a
total of 32 bits; this always produces a 0 result. Fix this by casting
it to a dma_addr_t (a 64 bit unsigned int) before performing the shift.
Detected by CoverityScan, CID#147270 ("Operands don't affe
5 matches
Mail list logo