Re: [PATCH] i386, nmi: signed vs unsigned mixup

[Jesper Juhl]

On 11/20/05, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c::nmi_watchdog_tick(), the variable `sum' is
> > of type "int" but it's used to store the result of
> > per_cpu(irq_stat, cpu).apic_timer_irqs which is an "unsigned int", it's
> > also later compared to last_irq_sums[cpu] which is also an
> > "unsigned int", so `sum' really ought to be unsigned itself.
> > This small patch makes that change.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.15-rc1-git7-orig/arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c 2005-11-12 18:07:14.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.15-rc1-git7/arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c      2005-11-19 23:58:17.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -528,9 +528,10 @@ void nmi_watchdog_tick (struct pt_regs *
> >        * Since current_thread_info()-> is always on the stack, and we
> >        * always switch the stack NMI-atomically, it's safe to use
> >        * smp_processor_id().
> >        */
> > -     int sum, cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > +     unsigned int sum;
> > +     int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >
> >       sum = per_cpu(irq_stat, cpu).apic_timer_irqs;
> >
> >       if (last_irq_sums[cpu] == sum) {
> >
>
> -ETOOTRIVIAL.  The code as-is works OK, and we have these sorts of things
> all over the tee.
>
Fair enough.

Would a patch to clean this sort of stuff up in bulk all over be of
interrest or should I just leave it alone?


--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
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/