I would change tid from an int to an unsigned instead, he is the culprit
that is promoting the unsigned to an signed.
Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Meelis Roos
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:30 PM
> To: Linux Kernel list
> Subject: integer overflow in i2o_block
>
>
> Got this warning on 32-bit ppc, seems real? And it seems I2O
> subsystem has no maintainer (only DPT_I2O has one)?
>
> CC [M] drivers/message/i2o/i2o_block.o
> drivers/message/i2o/i2o_block.c: In function 'i2o_block_transfer':
> drivers/message/i2o/i2o_block.c:837: warning: integer
> overflow in expression
>
> The line in question is
> msg->u.head[1] = cpu_to_le32(I2O_CMD_PRIVATE << 24 | HOST_TID
> << 12 | tid);
> and I2O_CMD_PRIVATE is defined as 0xFF. This gets "0xFF0100 |
> tid" and
> fits into 32-bit unsigned but not into 32-bit signed integer properly.
> Target value head[*] is defined as u32 so the claculation
> does not fit
> during computation? Should we mark the shiftable inputas as unsigned?
>
> --
> Meelis Roos ([email protected])
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
