Greg KH writes:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:46:19PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> > >> However, I think using resource_size_t is a bit better than unsigned
> > >> long,
> > >> so that w
From: Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:53:28 +0200
> Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > --- a/drivers/pci/rom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/rom.c
> > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ void __iomem *pci_map_rom_copy(struct pc
> > IORESOURC
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:46:19PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> > >> However, I think using resource_size_t is a bit better than unsigned
> > >>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:46:19PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >> However, I think using resource_size_t is a bit better than unsigned long,
> >> so that we don't need to check the defination
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:46:19PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> However, I think using resource_size_t is a bit better than unsigned long,
>> so that we don't need to check the defination of it.
>>
>> - res->start = (unsigned long)kmalloc(*size, GFP_KERNEL);
>>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:46:19PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:00:12PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> >> Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >> > --- a/drivers/pci/rom.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, WANG Cong wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:00:12PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > [...]
> >It better not be, else we have a bug already anyway. Pointers are 64-bit
> >on 64-bit archs. [ it turns out res->start is resource_size_t which is
> >set properly as per CONFIG_RES
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:00:12PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>> Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> > --- a/drivers/pci/rom.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/pci/rom.c
>> > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ void __iomem *pci_map_rom_copy(struct p
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > --- a/drivers/pci/rom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/rom.c
> > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ void __iomem *pci_map_rom_copy(struct pc
> > IORESOURCE_ROM_BIOS_COPY))
> >
Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> --- a/drivers/pci/rom.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/rom.c
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ void __iomem *pci_map_rom_copy(struct pc
> IORESOURCE_ROM_BIOS_COPY))
> return rom;
>
> - res->start = (unsigned long)kmalloc(*s
Signed-off-by: Jack Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/pci/rom.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: b/drivers/pci/rom.c
===
--- a/drivers/pci/rom.c
+++ b/dr
11 matches
Mail list logo