> On May 31, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 10:54 -0700, Himanshu Madhani wrote:
>> static inline void *
>> +qla25xx_copy_exlogin(struct qla_hw_data *ha, void *ptr, uint32_t **last_chain)
>> +{
>> + struct qla2xxx_offld_chain *c = ptr;
>> +
>> + if (!ha->exlogin_buf)
>> + return ptr;
>> +
>> + *last_chain = &c->type;
>> +
>> + c->type = htonl(DUMP_CHAIN_EXLOGIN);
>> + c->chain_size = htonl(sizeof(struct qla2xxx_offld_chain) +
>> + ha->exlogin_size);
>> + c->size = htonl(ha->exlogin_size);
>
> Since this is not networking code, why is this code using htonl() instead of
> cpu_to_be32()?
>
>> + c->addr_l = htonl(LSD(ha->exlogin_buf_dma));
>> + c->addr_h = htonl(MSD(ha->exlogin_buf_dma));
>
> Please use cpu_to_be64() instead of this weird construct.
>
>> + uint32_t addr_l;
>> + uint32_t addr_h;
>
> Please declare this as a single 64-bit variable instead of using this weird
> split into two 32-bit variables.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Sure. Will update patch with the correct construct.
Thanks,
- Himanshu
