netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 04/11] bnxt_en: Improve bnxt_hwrm_func_backing_store_cfg

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: <7effec89-1f94-4313-b68f-c653ee07a6b2@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 13:19:00 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 andrew+netdev@...n.ch, pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com,
 andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com,
 Kalesh AP <kalesh-anakkur.purayil@...adcom.com>,
 Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 04/11] bnxt_en: Improve
 bnxt_hwrm_func_backing_store_cfg_v2()

On 9/15/25 5:04 AM, Michael Chan wrote:
> Optimize the loop inside this function that sends the FW message
> to configure backing store memory for each instance of a memory
> type.  It uses 2 loop counters i and j, but both counters advance
> at the same time so we can eliminate one of them.

The above statement does not look correct.

> @@ -9128,20 +9128,20 @@ static int bnxt_hwrm_func_backing_store_cfg_v2(struct bnxt *bp,
>  	req->subtype_valid_cnt = ctxm->split_entry_cnt;
>  	for (i = 0, p = &req->split_entry_0; i < ctxm->split_entry_cnt; i++)
>  		p[i] = cpu_to_le32(ctxm->split[i]);
> -	for (i = 0, j = 0; j < n && !rc; i++) {
> +	for (i = 0; i < n && !rc; i++) {
>  		struct bnxt_ctx_pg_info *ctx_pg;
>  
>  		if (!(instance_bmap & (1 << i)))
>  			continue;
>  		req->instance = cpu_to_le16(i);
> -		ctx_pg = &ctxm->pg_info[j++];
> +		ctx_pg = &ctxm->pg_info[i];

`j` is incremented only for bit set in `instance_bmap`, AFAICS this does
not introduces functional changes only if `instance_bmap` has all the
bit set.

/P