On 8/10/2023 5:52 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 10/08/2023 07:11, Komal Bajaj wrote:
+ if (!cfgs || cfgs->num_config != DEF_NUM_CFG) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto err;
+ }
+ cfg = &cfgs->llcc_config[DEF_NUM_CFG - 1];
This is a bit of a redundant check.
You add in the check for num_config != 1, then deref llc_config[0] but
in patch #4 you get an index and check that index against num_config
Hi Bryan, Thanks for reviewing the patch.
Correct, in patch#4, index is checked against num_config, but the
condition also checks for equality case.
For ex. in patch#6, num_config is 4, so index can vary from 0-3.
I'm not seeing how at this point in your series, how num_config could
be anything other than 1.
I'd do away with the DEF_NUM_CFG define in this code/series completely.
num_config should encode all the necessary detail we need, DEF_NUM_CFG
just adds noise.
Got your point, will remove the macro DEF_NUM_CFG from the series.
Thanks
Komal
---
bod
