Re: [PATCH] avoid negative (and full-width) shifts in radix-tree.c, take 3

On 2007.08.29 10:49:12 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Peter Lund wrote:
> 
> >  
> > -	if (tmp >= RADIX_TREE_INDEX_BITS)
> > -		index = ~0UL;
> > -	return index;
> > +	if (shift < 0)
> > +		return ~0UL;
> > +	if (shift >= 8 * sizeof(unsigned long))
> 
> 8* sizeof(unsigned long) is the constant BITS_PER_LONG.

Or in this context: RADIX_TREE_INDEX_BITS, which happens to be the old
check, which just needed to be extended to cover negative shifts.

Björn
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] avoid negative (and full-width) shifts in radix-tree.c, take 3
    • From: Peter Lund <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] avoid negative (and full-width) shifts in radix-tree.c, take 3
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [1/4] 2.6.23-rc4: known regressions
• Next by Date: [RFC 1/4] Large Blocksize support for Ext2/3/4
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] avoid negative (and full-width) shifts in radix-tree.c, take 3
• Next by thread: x86_64 vdso patch is broken somehow?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]