On 9/11/2018 1:38 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:25:11PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
On 9/11/2018 11:17 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 07:53:44AM -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
Hi Doug and Jason,
Here are two patches that should probably land in the RC. The first one ensures
we don't index beyond the end of an array. The other is more subtle but arguably
more important. The bug it fixes results in incorrect IRQ bits to be set and the
result is we do not get an interrupt for an error and have to wait for another
interrupt to fire to see said error.
Dennis Dalessandro (1):
IB/hfi1: Ensure ucast_dlid access doesnt exceed bounds
Michael J. Ruhl (1):
IB/hfi1: set_intr_bits uses incorrect source for register modification
These don't apply to current for-rc:
Applying: IB/hfi1: Ensure ucast_dlid access doesnt exceed bounds
Applying: IB/hfi1: set_intr_bits uses incorrect source for register modification
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/chip.c
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/chip.c
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/chip.c
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
Patch failed at 0002 IB/hfi1: set_intr_bits uses incorrect source for register modification
Use 'git am --show-current-patch' to see the failed patch
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
Ah, I think I got my wires crossed. Mike's patch should land in for-next. It
fixes one of his earlier patches that Doug pulled in. Can you just apply
this there or do you want me to re-send? My patch can still go to -rc
though.
I'll take Michael's patch, to for-next, but the other one needs a
better commit message. You can't fix 'theoretical bugs' in -stable.
Let me revise. Will drop the stable tag and touch up commit message and
it can just go to for-next. As you said it's a theoretical bug.
-Denny
