[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <F54AEECA5E2B9541821D670476DAE19C5A918CC4@PGSMSX102.gar.corp.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 00:43:02 +0000
From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
Giuseppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
"seraphin.bonnaffe@...com" <seraphin.bonnaffe@...com>,
Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...il.com>,
"Joachim Eastwood" <manabian@...il.com>,
Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...s.com>,
"Johan Hovold" <johan@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"lars.persson@...s.com" <lars.persson@...s.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] net: stmmac: fix maxmtu assignment to be within
valid range
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevchenko@...il.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 8:12 AM
> To: Kweh, Hock Leong <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Joao Pinto
> <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>; Giuseppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavallaro@...com>;
> seraphin.bonnaffe@...com; Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>; Alexandre
> TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...il.com>; Joachim Eastwood
> <manabian@...il.com>; Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...s.com>; Johan Hovold
> <johan@...nel.org>; Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>; lars.persson@...s.com;
> netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>; LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] net: stmmac: fix maxmtu assignment to be within valid
> range
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Kweh, Hock Leong
> <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com> wrote:
> > From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>
> >
> > There is no checking valid value of maxmtu when getting it from device tree.
> > This resolution added the checking condition to ensure the assignment is
> > made within a valid range.
>
> > changelog v4:
> > * add print warning message when maxmtu > max_mtu as well
>
> Yep.
>
> > * add maxmtu = JUMBO_LEN into each *_default_data() at stmmac_pci.c
>
> Yep.
>
> But see comment below.
>
> P.S. And perhaps next time send into our internal mailing list first for review.
>
> > @@ -3345,8 +3345,14 @@ int stmmac_dvr_probe(struct device *device,
> > ndev->max_mtu = JUMBO_LEN;
> > else
> > ndev->max_mtu = SKB_MAX_HEAD(NET_SKB_PAD + NET_IP_ALIGN);
> > - if (priv->plat->maxmtu < ndev->max_mtu)
> > + if ((priv->plat->maxmtu < ndev->max_mtu) &&
> > + (priv->plat->maxmtu >= ndev->min_mtu))
> > ndev->max_mtu = priv->plat->maxmtu;
>
> > + else if ((priv->plat->maxmtu < ndev->min_mtu) ||
> > + (priv->plat->maxmtu > ndev->max_mtu))
> > + netdev_warn(priv->dev,
>
> What is the difference to just 'else'? (Returning back to my initial
> proposal, I don't remember telling anything about 'else if' concept)
>
When priv->plat->maxmtu == ndev->max_mtu will not be a warning message.
Oh NO ... it is a valid case for priv->plat->maxmtu > ndev->max_mtu if the
assignment of ndev->max_mtu is using SKB_MAX_HEAD(NET_SKB_PAD + NET_IP_ALIGN),
which is < JUMBO_LEN, then priv->plat->maxmtu > ndev->max_mtu is valid.
Revert back and submit V5. Thanks.
> > + "%s: warning: maxmtu having invalid value (%d)\n",
> > + __func__, priv->plat->maxmtu);
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists