netdev - Re: [PATCH 14/23 v3] mlx4_core: Determine primary physical function

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: <ada3a1gfxbi.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com>
Date:	Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:30:41 -0800
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@...lanox.co.il>
Cc:	general@...ts.openfabrics.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	liranl@...lanox.co.il, tziporet@...lanox.co.il
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/23 v3] mlx4_core: Determine primary physical function

 > +	MLX4_FLAG_PF		= 1 << 5,

Am I mistaken, or is this the only place this flag appears anywhere in
the patch set?  In other words it is never set and never tested -- so
probably we don't need it?

 > +	dev_cap->pf_num = field;
 > +	if (dev_cap->pf_num > 1)
 > +		dev->flags |= MLX4_FLAG_MASTER;

Is this correct?  All PFs > 1 are masters?  Or should the test be "== 1"
rather than "> 1" instead?
-- 
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>
Cisco.com - http://www.cisco.com

For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html