[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1334256118.2497.9.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:41:58 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Stuart Hodgson <smhodgson@...arflare.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
<mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>, <decot@...gle.com>,
<amit.salecha@...gic.com>, <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] net: ethtool: Add capability to retrieve
plug-in module EEPROM
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 10:18 +0100, Stuart Hodgson wrote:
> On 12/04/12 00:42, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > Maybe we should start by refactoring ethtool_get_eeprom() so we can
> > reuse most of its code in ethtool_get_module_eeprom(), rather than
> > having to worry about what the maximum size of a module EEPROM might be
> > and whether we need a loop:
> >
> > Subject: ethtool: Split ethtool_get_eeprom() to allow for additional EEPROM accessors
[...]
> > @@ -771,7 +770,7 @@ static int ethtool_get_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, void __user *useraddr)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > /* Check for exceeding total eeprom len */
> > - if (eeprom.offset + eeprom.len> ops->get_eeprom_len(dev))
> > + if (eeprom.offset + eeprom.len> total_len)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > data = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_USER);
>
> Should this not be eeprom.len?
[...]
No, because this function loops over PAGE_SIZE chunks. That's
presumably necessary for large NIC EEPROMs, and if we reuse it we won't
have to wory about whether it's ever necessary for large module EEPROMs.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists