Li, Ming4 wrote: > On 10/10/2024 3:49 AM, Ira Weiny wrote: > > Li, Ming4 wrote: > >> On 10/8/2024 7:16 AM, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> From: Navneet Singh <navneet.singh@xxxxxxxxx> [snip] > > This should fix it: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c > > index d66beec687a0..99200274dea8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c > > +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c > > @@ -1119,10 +1119,11 @@ static int cxl_send_dc_response(struct cxl_memdev_state *mds, int opcode, > > if (rc) > > return rc; > > pl_index = 0; > > + cnt -= pl_index; > > should update cnt before pl_index is reset to 0. Of course. > > the cnt is a one of parameters of cxl_send_dc_response(), that means the > caller gives the value of cnt, is that possible if the size of > extent_array is larger than cnt? No both callers ensure cnt is equal to the number of elements in the array. Otherwise cxl_send_dc_response() would need to iterate the array to determine this size itself. It is just more efficient to pass that count which was already determined. > Should skip remain extents in > extent_array when cnt is equal to 0? > No not skip. But this makes me rethink this solution. The spec requires a response even if 0 extents are accepted. That is what drove me to the buggy solution before. I'll have to think on this a bit. I'd like to not have weird gotos but that is the easiest solution I see. Ira
