On 22/03/17 06:27, Zhen Lei wrote:
> Keep these four variables type consistent with the paramters of function
> __alloc_and_insert_iova_range and the members of struct iova:
>
> 1. static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad,
> unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn,
>
> 2. struct iova {
> unsigned long pfn_hi;
> unsigned long pfn_lo;
>
> In fact, limit_pfn is most likely larger than 32 bits on DMA64.
FWIW if pad_size manages to overflow an int something's probably gone
horribly wrong, but there's no harm in making it consistent with
everything else here. However, given that patch #6 makes this irrelevant
anyway, do we really need to bother?
Robin.
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leiz...@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/iova.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> index b7268a1..8ba8b496 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> @@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain *iovad,
> struct iova *free)
> * Computes the padding size required, to make the start address
> * naturally aligned on the power-of-two order of its size
> */
> -static unsigned int
> -iova_get_pad_size(unsigned int size, unsigned int limit_pfn)
> +static unsigned long
> +iova_get_pad_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn)
> {
> return (limit_pfn + 1 - size) & (__roundup_pow_of_two(size) - 1);
> }
> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct
> iova_domain *iovad,
> struct rb_node *prev, *curr = NULL;
> unsigned long flags;
> unsigned long saved_pfn;
> - unsigned int pad_size = 0;
> + unsigned long pad_size = 0;
>
> /* Walk the tree backwards */
> spin_lock_irqsave(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags);
>
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
