[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e8391577-3883-9e31-b5a5-b407927a56d5@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 16:35:18 -0500
From: Alex Elder <alex.elder@...aro.org>
To: Bert Karwatzki <spasswolf@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IPA_STATUS_SIZE, commit b8dc7d0eea5a7709bb534f1b3ca70d2d7de0b42c
On 5/12/23 8:04 AM, Bert Karwatzki wrote:
> commit b8dc7d0eea5a7709bb534f1b3ca70d2d7de0b42c
> Author: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
> Date: Wed Jan 25 14:45:39 2023 -0600
>
> net: ipa: stop using sizeof(status)
>
> The IPA packet status structure changes in IPA v5.0 in ways that
> are
> difficult to represent cleanly. As a small step toward redefining
> it as a parsed block of data, use a constant to define its size,
> rather than the size of the IPA status structure type.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>
> introduced the IPA_STATUS_SIZE constant as a replacent for
> sizeof(struct ipa_status). IPA_STATUS_SIZE is defined as
> sizeof(__le32[4]), but sizeof(struct ipa_status) = sizeof(__le32[8])
> and the newly introducded ipa_status_extract operates on 8 __le32
> words, so I wondered if IPA_STATUS_SIZE is correct.
You are right to wonder about this. I think you have identified
a bug. It is a bug that most likely almost never matters (because
the status size is always proper--and not too small), but it is
a bug nevertheless.
Would you like to provide a patch to fix this? Otherwise I can
do that, and I'll provide credit to you:
Reported-by: Bert Karwatzki <spasswolf@....de>
Please let me know. Thanks for inquiring about/reporting this.
-Alex
>
> Bert Karwatzki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists