21 Feb
2019
21 Feb
'19
1:29 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 02:18:01PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 2/20/19 11:44 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:07:27PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
- /* make sure count is <= avail */
- count = avail > count ? count : avail;
count = min(avail, count)?
as discussed in the last review, we didn't use min() since it adds a number of obscure warnings with sparse. I haven't found any time to look into this so for now left the code as is. Sparse is a useful tool for the address checks (topology/DMAs with _le32, __iomem, etc), the fewer warnings we get the better.
Shouldn't be sparse itself get fixed?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko