On Wed, Sep 09 2015, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 10:38 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> The double memset is a little ugly; using kzalloc avoids it altogether.
> []
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c
> []
>> @@ -1859,14 +1859,11 @@ oom:
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> - mc_spec = kmalloc(0x200, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> + mc_spec = kzalloc(0x200, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> if (mc_spec == NULL)
>> goto oom;
>> mc_other = mc_spec + (0x100 >> 2);
>
> This sure looks wrong as it sets a pointer
> to unallocated memory.
>
>> - memset(mc_spec, 0, 0x100);
>> - memset(mc_other, 0, 0x100);
>
> So this does a memset of random memory.
>
Huh? mc_spec and mc_other are u32*, we allocate 0x200 = 512 bytes = 128
u32s, and pointer arithmetic makes mc_other point to the latter 64. Then
the memory is cleared 256 bytes at a time.
It's unusual and slightly obfuscated code, but I don't think it's
wrong.
>
> for (i = 0; i < 0x100; i += 4) {
> wrl(mp, SPECIAL_MCAST_TABLE(mp->port_num) + i, mc_spec[i >> 2]);
> wrl(mp, OTHER_MCAST_TABLE(mp->port_num) + i, mc_other[i >> 2]);
> }
I'd probably have written that as
for (i = 0; i < 64; ++i) {
wrl(mp, SPECIAL_MCAST_TABLE(mp->port_num) + 4*i, mc_spec[i]);
wrl(mp, OTHER_MCAST_TABLE(mp->port_num) + 4*i, mc_other[i]);
}
but again, I don't think it's wrong [haven't checked what
SPECIAL_MCAST_TABLE/OTHER_MCAST_TABLE do, though].
Rasmus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
