![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 18:48 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The Coverity checker noted that bad things might happen if > find_isa_irq_apic() returned -1. > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> hm, it seems the checker did not notice the following: find_isa_irq_apic() can return -1 /only/ if find_isa_irq_pin() returns -1 too. So this is not a bug - it's rather a bit unclean code (and adding a check for -1 apic does not make the code cleaner). Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-13 09:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||