[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aMKxc6AuEiWplhcV@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 12:24:35 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: rohan.g.thomas@...era.com
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
Rohan G Thomas <rohan.g.thomas@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...era.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net: stmmac: est: Fix GCL bounds checks
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 04:22:59PM +0800, Rohan G Thomas via B4 Relay wrote:
> @@ -1012,7 +1012,7 @@ static int tc_taprio_configure(struct stmmac_priv *priv,
> s64 delta_ns = qopt->entries[i].interval;
> u32 gates = qopt->entries[i].gate_mask;
>
> - if (delta_ns > GENMASK(wid, 0))
> + if (delta_ns >= BIT(wid))
While I agree this makes it look better, you don't change the version
below, which makes the code inconsistent. I also don't see anything
wrong with the original comparison.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists