On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:20:39PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > 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> Okay applied to for-next Jason
