> -----Original Message----- > From: Kalderon, Michal [mailto:Michal.Kalderon@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:10 AM > To: Marciniszyn, Mike <mike.marciniszyn@xxxxxxxxx>; Ismail, Mustafa > <mustafa.ismail@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > dledford@xxxxxxxxxx > Cc: swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; e1000-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Saleem, Shiraz > <shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx>; Amrani, Ram <Ram.Amrani@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr > > > From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma- > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marciniszyn, Mike > > > Initialize the port_num for iWARP in rdma_init_qp_attr. > > > > > > Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds") > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v2.6.14+ > > > Reviewed-by: Steve Wise <swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Why is the second patch required if you only validate the port_num if the > IB_QP_PORT mask is on? > Given the first patch [PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/uverbs: Fix the check for port > number, this one seems redundant. Strictly speaking it is not required, but we felt it safer to always return a valid port number as is done in the IB case. Regards, Mustafa -- 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
