Hi there,
> #define Q_SET_SEL(cpu, selname, address, size) \
> set_base(cpu_gdt_table[cpu][(selname) >> 3], __va((u32)(address))); \
> -set_limit(&cpu_gdt_table[cpu][(selname) >> 3], size)
> +set_limit(cpu_gdt_table[cpu][(selname) >> 3], size)
> #define Q2_SET_SEL(cpu, selname, address, size) \
> set_base(cpu_gdt_table[cpu][(selname) >> 3], (u32)(address)); \
> -set_limit(&cpu_gdt_table[cpu][(selname) >> 3], size)
> +set_limit(cpu_gdt_table[cpu][(selname) >> 3], size)
These look very wrong. They're not wrapped in the standard do {...}
while(0) protection, and used inside bare if statements below. Can
someone who knows the code verify that these should be wrapped?
(Not, mind you, that I'm complaining about your patch. You didn't
introduce the problem, it just caught my eye.)
Ray
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:14 EST