Re: [PATCH 00/33] dyn_array and nr_irqs support v4

[Yinghai Lu]

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:02:18 -0700
> ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
>> Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/