On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:23:39PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:00:18AM -0500, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Mitko Haralanov <mitko.harala...@intel.com>
> > +static int unprogram_rcvarray(struct file *fp, u32 tidinfo,
> > + struct tid_group **grp)
> > +{
> > + struct hfi1_filedata *fd = fp->private_data;
> > + struct hfi1_ctxtdata *uctxt = fd->uctxt;
> > + struct hfi1_devdata *dd = uctxt->dd;
> > + struct mmu_rb_node *node;
> > + u8 tidctrl = EXP_TID_GET(tidinfo, CTRL);
> > + u32 tidbase = uctxt->expected_base,
> > + tididx = EXP_TID_GET(tidinfo, IDX) << 1, rcventry;
> > +
> > + if (tididx > uctxt->expected_count) {
>
> Should this be >= ? I don't think it makes that much difference since
> we're not using it as an offset.
Yes it looks like it should be.
I'm working on a V2 now.
Ira
>
> > + dd_dev_err(dd, "Invalid RcvArray entry (%u) index for ctxt
> > %u\n",
> > + tididx, uctxt->ctxt);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (tidctrl == 0x3)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + rcventry = tidbase + tididx + (tidctrl - 1);
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&fd->rb_lock);
> > + node = mmu_rb_search_by_entry(&fd->tid_rb_root, rcventry);
> > + if (!node) {
> > + spin_unlock(&fd->rb_lock);
> > + return -EBADF;
> > + }
> > + rb_erase(&node->rbnode, &fd->tid_rb_root);
> > + spin_unlock(&fd->rb_lock);
> > + if (grp)
> > + *grp = node->grp;
> > + clear_tid_node(fd, fd->subctxt, node);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
