[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b363719-0250-48c1-9d89-0d4ae86accf8@stanley.mountain>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 18:49:06 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org" <lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"coreteam@...filter.org" <coreteam@...filter.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipvs: Fix clamp() order in ip_vs_conn_init()
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 02:27:06PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter
> > Sent: 11 December 2024 13:17
> >
> > We recently added some build time asserts to detect incorrect calls to
> > clamp and it detected this bug which breaks the build. The variable
> > in this clamp is "max_avail" and it should be the first argument. The
> > code currently is the equivalent to max = max(max_avail, max).
>
> The fix is correct but the description above is wrong.
Aw yes, it's max = min(max_avail, max); I'll resend.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists