Re: [PATCH 3.9-stable] ntb: off by one sanity checks

2013-05-22 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:51:29AM -0700, Jon Mason wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:38:50AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 07:47:09AM -0700, Jon Mason wrote: > > > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:35:38AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote: > > > > From: Dan Carpenter > > > > > > > > Thi

Re: [PATCH 3.9-stable] ntb: off by one sanity checks

2013-05-20 Thread Jon Mason
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:38:50AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 07:47:09AM -0700, Jon Mason wrote: > > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:35:38AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote: > > > From: Dan Carpenter > > > > > > This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply

Re: [PATCH 3.9-stable] ntb: off by one sanity checks

2013-05-20 Thread Greg KH
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 07:47:09AM -0700, Jon Mason wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:35:38AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote: > > From: Dan Carpenter > > > > This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply > > it? > > Yes, please do. I'll respond to each of the patch se

Re: [PATCH 3.9-stable] ntb: off by one sanity checks

2013-05-18 Thread Jon Mason
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:35:38AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote: > From: Dan Carpenter > > This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply > it? Yes, please do. I'll respond to each of the patch series, but please apply them all. Also, one patch was omitted from these,

[PATCH 3.9-stable] ntb: off by one sanity checks

2013-05-17 Thread Jonghwan Choi
From: Dan Carpenter This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply it? -- From: "Dan Carpenter " commit ad3e2751e7c546ae678be1f8d86e898506b42cef upstream These tests are off by one. If "mw" is equal to NTB_NUM_MW then we would go beyond the end of