On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:15:05PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:46:54PM -0400, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > The addition of the rdma_cap_ib_mad is technically broken in ib_umad_remove_one > > because the loop "i" value is not a port value. > > > > This bug resulted in the ib_umad failing to properly remove its resources when > > the core capability functions were converted to bit fields. > > > > NOTE: This original patch did not result in broken behavior on its own. It was > > only an issue when the implementation of rdma_cap_ib_mad was changed. > > Didn't cause a bug, but is certainly wrong.. > > >+ if (rdma_cap_ib_mad(device, i)) > >- if (rdma_cap_ib_mad(device, i + start_port(device))) > > Is alot simpler. At the very least, use start_port/end_port to compute > those ranges... I was really hoping to avoid making start/end port public. But you are correct... Additional patches on the way. Ira -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
