On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Can you pull this bug fix into your tree please? > > I took it, but I think both your explanation and the patch itself is > actually crap. It may fix the issue, but it's seriously confused. > > Your explanation says that it's a 32-bit platform issue. No it's not. > Most 32-bit configurations still have a 64-bit phys_addr_t (ie > PAE/LPAE etc). > > And the code is crap, because it uses ULONG_MAX etc in ways that > simply make no f*cking sense. And why does it care about sizeof? > > Why does the code not just do something like > > #define MAX_PHYS_ADDR ((phys_addr_t) ~0) > > and then do > > if (base > MAX_PHYS_ADDR || base + size > MAX_PHYS_ADDR) > ...
Sure. I'll make sure a cleanup patch gets written and queued up. g. -- 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/
