On 11/8/18 1:48 PM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 1:45 PM
+ memcpy(desc, qi->desc + (wait_index << shift),
Would "memcpy(desc, (unsigned long long) (qi->desc + (wait_index
<< shift)," be more safe?
Can that be compiled? memcpy() requires a "const void *" for the
second
parameter.
By the way, why it's safer with this casting?
This is just an example. My point is the possibility that "qi->desc
+ (wait_index <<
shift)"
would be treated as "qi->desc plus (wait_index <<
shift)*sizeof(*qi->desc)". Is it possible for kernel build?
qi->desc is of type of "void *".
no, I don’t think so... Refer to the code below. Even it has no correctness
issue her,
It's not due to qi->desc is "void *" type...
struct qi_desc {
- u64 low, high;
+ u64 qw0;
+ u64 qw1;
+ u64 qw2;
+ u64 qw3;
};
Oops, just see you modified it to be "void *" in this patch. Ok, then this is
fair enough.
Yes. :-)
Best regards,
Lu Baolu
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
