On 10/30/20 7:23 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:50:52 -0500 Alex Elder wrote: >> On 10/29/20 11:11 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:41:43 -0500 Alex Elder wrote: >>>> This series fixes several bugs. They are minor, in that the code >>>> currently works on supported platforms even without these patches >>>> applied, but they're bugs nevertheless and should be fixed. >>> >>> By which you mean "it seems to work just fine most of the time" or "the >>> current code does not exercise this paths/functionally these bugs don't >>> matter for current platforms". >> >> The latter, although for patch 3 I'm not 100% sure. >> >> Case by case: >> Patch 1: >> It works. I inquired what the consequence of passing this >> wrong buffer pointer was, and for the way we are using IPA >> it seems it's fine--the memory pointer we were assigning is >> not used, so it's OK. But we're assigning the wrong pointer. >> Patch 2: >> It works. Even though the bit field is 1 bit wide (not two) >> we never actually write a value greater than 1, so we don't >> cause a problem. But the definition is incorrect. >> Patch 3: >> It works, but on the SDM845 we should be assigning the endpoints >> to use resource group 1 (they are 0 by default). The way we >> currently use this upstream we don't have other endpoints >> competing for resources, so I think this is fine. SC7180 we >> will assign endpoints to resource group 0, which is the default. >> Patch 4: >> It works. This is like patch 2; we define the number of these >> things incorrectly, but the way we currently use them we never >> exceed the limit in a broken way. >> Patch 5: >> It works. The maximum number of supported groups is even, >> and if a (smaller) odd number are used the remainder are >> programmed with 0, which is appropriate for undefined >> fields. >> >> If you have any concerns about back-porting these fixes I >> think I'm comfortable posting them for net-next instead. >> I debated that before sending them out. Please request that >> if it's what you think would be best. > > Looks like these patches apply cleanly to net-next, so I put them there. > > Thanks!
Works for me. Thank you. -Alex >
