From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261587AbVFOVdA (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:33:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261590AbVFOVaf (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:30:35 -0400 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:23527 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261589AbVFOVaJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:30:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20050615.142953.59469324.davem@davemloft.net> To: juhl-lkml@dif.dk Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@redhat.com, ross.biro@gmail.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [-mm PATCH][4/4] net: signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jesper Juhl Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:32:22 +0200 (CEST) > - if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && iph->ihl * 4 <= length) { > + if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && (size_t)(iph->ihl * 4) <= length) { Would changing the "4" into "4U" kill this warning just the same? I think I'd prefer that.