On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 19:10 +0300, Cristian Stoica wrote: > On 06/11/2015 06:38 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:42:00PM +0300, Cristian Stoica wrote: > > > > Why? > > > > This patch matches the input argument "size" of ioremap() with the > output of request_mem_region() (which is > resource_size_t). > Since the latter is used as input to the former, the types should > match (even though mapping more than 4G is not usually > expected). There are a lot of such differences in the code and this > is an attempt to reduce that.
Dropping the upper bits of the size harms the ability to detect error scenarios where unmappably large -- but not power-of-two -- regions are requested to be mapped. However, this patch doesn't fix that. It just postpones the loss of the upper 32 bits until __ioremap_caller() calls get_vm_area_caller(). There's also no error checking at all for the size of ioremap() done during early boot (!slab_is_available()). Don't just blindly turn static analyzer reports into patches -- and why didn't the analyzer complain about the call to get_vm_area_caller() after this patch? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
