On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:39:12 +0300 Or Gerlitz <or.gerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sebastien dugue <sebastien.du...@bull.net> wrote: > > > @@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ struct ib_cq *mlx4_ib_create_cq(struct ib_device > > > *ibdev, int entries, int vector > > > struct mlx4_uar *uar; > > > int err; > > > > > > + entries = roundup_pow_of_two(entries + 1); > > > if (entries < 1 || entries > dev->dev->caps.max_cqes) > > > > Is the first check still needed here then? > > not really, good catch - unless we need to protect here from negative > values coming > e.g from user space, I'll look this up, thanks > > Or. > > Or. A small test shows that for n < 2, we have roundup_pow_of_two(n) == 1. But this is with the current implementation and on x86_64, so maybe on other architectures the test may still be needed after all. Sébastien. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
