On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:24:08 +0200 (CEST), Nicolas Pitre
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> > Commit a67a6ed15513541579d38bcbd127e7be170710e5
> > (of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch)
> > corrected early_init_dt_add_memory_arch to account for ove
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Laura Abbott wrote:
> Commit a67a6ed15513541579d38bcbd127e7be170710e5
> (of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch)
> corrected early_init_dt_add_memory_arch to account for overflows
> but did so in an unclean way using ULONG_MAX. There is no
> guaran
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> Commit a67a6ed15513541579d38bcbd127e7be170710e5
> (of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch)
> corrected early_init_dt_add_memory_arch to account for overflows
> but did so in an unclean way using ULONG_MAX. There is
Commit a67a6ed15513541579d38bcbd127e7be170710e5
(of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch)
corrected early_init_dt_add_memory_arch to account for overflows
but did so in an unclean way using ULONG_MAX. There is no
guarantee that sizeof(unsigned long) == sizeof(phys_addr_