On 11/19/2012 04:01 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 03:52 +0000, Tushar Behera wrote: >> On 11/16/2012 10:23 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >>> To be honest I'd nack this kind of patch. The test is only redundant in the >>> most trivial sense that the compiler can easily optimise away. The point of >>> the test is to make sure that the range is OK even if the type subsequently >>> becomes signed (to hold a -ve error, for example). >>> >>> J >>> >> >> The check is on the function argument which is unsigned, so checking '< >> 0' doesn't make sense. We should force signed check only if the argument >> is of signed type. In any case, even if irq has been assigned some error >> value, that would be caught by the check irq >= nr_irqs. > > Jeremy is (I think) arguing that this check is not redundant because > someone might change the type of the argument to be signed and until > then the compiler can trivially optimise the check away, so what's the > harm in it? > > I'm somewhat inclined to agree with him. > > Ian. > Ok, I don't have much argument against this.
-- Tushar Behera -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
