linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 2/8] hwtracing: hisi_ptt: Add trace function support for HiSilicon PCIe Tune and Trace device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f1e5309d-d330-faf1-32c5-78962b125f66@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 09:21:21 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        <leo.yan@...aro.org>, <james.clark@....com>, <will@...nel.org>,
        <robin.murphy@....com>, <acme@...nel.org>,
        <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
CC:     <helgaas@...nel.org>, <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>, <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        <mark.rutland@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <prime.zeng@...wei.com>,
        <liuqi115@...wei.com>, <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/8] hwtracing: hisi_ptt: Add trace function support
 for HiSilicon PCIe Tune and Trace device

On 17/05/2022 09:09, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>> +    target = cpumask_any(cpumask_of_node(dev_to_node(&hisi_ptt->pdev->dev)));
>>> +    if (target < nr_cpumask_bits) {
>> the comment for cpumask_any() hints to check against nr_cpu_ids - any specific reason to check against nr_cpumask_bits?
>>
> here should be:
> 	if (target >= nr_cpumask_bits) {
> 
> will fix this up.
> 

I am still not sure that using nr_cpumask_bits is correct.