[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLUPR0701MB2004E8FA50C46973E09FBA298DED0@BLUPR0701MB2004.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 14:03:22 +0000
From: "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] qed: fix uninitialized data in aRFS intrastructure
> register, which went subtly wrong due to the wrong size in a memset():
>
> ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_init_fw_funcs.c: In function
> 'qed_set_rfs_mode_disable':
> ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_init_fw_funcs.c:993:3: error: '*((void
> *)&ramline+4)' is used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=uninitialized]
>
> This removes the silly loop and memset, and instead directly writes the
> correct value to the register.
Hi Arnd,
For the most part - I'm almost all in favor of this change.
But just to make it clear - the actual fix could have been a one-liner, right?
The rest are style changes.
> +#define CAM_REG(pf_id) (PRS_REG_GFT_CAM + CAM_LINE_SIZE * (pf_id))
> +#define RAM_REG(pf_id) (PRS_REG_GFT_PROFILE_MASK_RAM +
Not sure I'm a huge fan of this specific style change;
Seems like we could easily manage without these macros.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists