Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Aug 2008 03:51:48 -0700 | From | "Yinghai Lu" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/33] dyn_array and nr_irqs support v4 |
| |
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:02:18 -0700 > ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > >> Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: >> >> > A lot of these are range checks so could be replaced by a single >> > valid_irq(irq) test. >> >> Yes. My first impression was that with NR_IRQS dead valid_irq could >> easily become. #define valid_irq(irq) ((irq) != 0) > > Not really - there are lots of cases where we sanity check an IRQ passed > from user space or module parameter configuration. So we do actually need > > valid_irq(irq) ((irq) > 0 && (irq) < nr_irqs) > > [or relevant per arch alternatives]
#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ #define valid_irq(irq) ((irq) > 0 && (irq) < nr_irqs) #else #define valid_irq(irq) ((irq) > 0)
anyway why 0 is invalid instead of -1U...?
YH
#endif
| |