netdev - [PATCH net-next 05/14] net/mlx5: Fix wrong comment

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]

Date:   Sun, 19 Feb 2023 22:14:33 -0800
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
To:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>,
        Shay Drory <shayd@...dia.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 05/14] net/mlx5: Fix wrong comment

From: Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>

A control irq may be allocated from the parent device's pool in case
there is no SF dedicated pool. This could happen when there are not
enough vectors available for SFs.

Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
Reviewed-by: Shay Drory <shayd@...dia.com>
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pci_irq.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pci_irq.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pci_irq.c
index 6bde18bcd42f..c72736f1571f 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pci_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pci_irq.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ struct mlx5_irq *mlx5_ctrl_irq_request(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 	cpumask_copy(req_mask, cpu_online_mask);
 	if (!mlx5_irq_pool_is_sf_pool(pool)) {
-		/* In case we are allocating a control IRQ for PF/VF */
+		/* In case we are allocating a control IRQ from a pci device's pool.
+		 * This can happen also for a SF if the SFs pool is empty.
+		 */
 		if (!pool->xa_num_irqs.max) {
 			cpumask_clear(req_mask);
 			/* In case we only have a single IRQ for PF/VF */
-- 
2.39.1