On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 01:37:49PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:18:22PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > This one still needs to be applied. > > > > regards, > > dan carpenter > > Weird, it is marked changes requested in patchworks. An email must > have been lost?? > Maybe you replied to a different thread? > I think I probably wanted to say that: > > > > /* Sanity check SQ size before proceeding */ > > > - if ((u32)(1 << ucmd->log_sq_bb_count) > hr_dev->caps.max_wqes || > > > + if (ucmd->log_sq_bb_count > 31 || > > > + (u32)(1 << ucmd->log_sq_bb_count) > hr_dev->caps.max_wqes > > > || > > Overall should probably be coded using check_shl_overflow(), as this > later shift: > > hr_qp->sq.wqe_cnt = 1 << ucmd->log_sq_bb_count; > > Is storing it into an int and hardwring '31' because it magically > matches that lower shift is pretty fragile. > > More like this? > Yeah. I like your patch. I'd feel silly claiming authorship though. I'm willing to, because it's nice, but probably you should just give me Reported-by credit instead. Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> regards, dan carpenter
