diff options
author | Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> | 2008-05-26 20:40:47 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> | 2008-06-05 13:58:42 +0200 |
commit | fa5b8a30cf03520737e9a0ee2ee03a61b2eccf05 (patch) | |
tree | bcb9f1b6b02ef72f0327c5d8d3c40e5f42006a13 /security | |
parent | dd564d0cf08686cf0cc332bf9d48cba5b26a8171 (diff) | |
download | blackbird-op-linux-fa5b8a30cf03520737e9a0ee2ee03a61b2eccf05.tar.gz blackbird-op-linux-fa5b8a30cf03520737e9a0ee2ee03a61b2eccf05.zip |
aperture_64.c: duplicated code, buggy?
Hi!
void __init early_gart_iommu_check(void)
contains
for (num = 24; num < 32; num++) {
if (!early_is_k8_nb(read_pci_config(0, num, 3, 0x00)))
continue;
loop, with very similar loop duplicated in
void __init gart_iommu_hole_init(void)
. First copy of a loop seems to be buggy, too. It uses 0 as a "nothing
set" value, which may actually bite us in last_aper_enabled case
(because it may be often zero).
(Beware, it is hard to test this patch, because this code has about
2^8 different code paths, depending on hardware and cmdline settings).
Plus, the second loop does not check for consistency of
aper_enabled. Should it?
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Diffstat (limited to 'security')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions