+static inline int page_is_rtas_user_buf(unsigned long pfn) +{ + unsigned long paddr = (pfn << PAGE_SHIFT); + if (paddr >= rtas_rmo_buf && paddr < (rtas_rmo_buf + RTAS_RMOBUF_MAX))It probably cannot overflow with actual values of rtas_rmo_buf and RTAS_RMOBUF_MAX, but otherwise it is an incorrect test; please write if (paddr >= rtas_rmo_buf && paddr - rtas_rmo_buf < RTAS_RMOBUF_MAX) (and, _MAX? Shouldn't it be the actual size here? Or is _MAX just a confusing name :-) )The original code is a lot more readable and perfectly correct for all possible values of rtas_rmo_buf :-)
You have to consider those possible values before you see it cannot overflow. So no, it's a lot _less_ readable IMHO. It's also a dangerous habit to get into. Just say no :-) Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
