On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:00:18AM -0500, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Mitko Haralanov <mitko.harala...@intel.com>
> +static int unprogram_rcvarray(struct file *fp, u32 tidinfo,
> + struct tid_group **grp)
> +{
> + struct hfi1_filedata *fd = fp->private_data;
> + struct hfi1_ctxtdata *uctxt = fd->uctxt;
> + struct hfi1_devdata *dd = uctxt->dd;
> + struct mmu_rb_node *node;
> + u8 tidctrl = EXP_TID_GET(tidinfo, CTRL);
> + u32 tidbase = uctxt->expected_base,
> + tididx = EXP_TID_GET(tidinfo, IDX) << 1, rcventry;
> +
> + if (tididx > uctxt->expected_count) {
Should this be >= ? I don't think it makes that much difference since
we're not using it as an offset.
> + dd_dev_err(dd, "Invalid RcvArray entry (%u) index for ctxt
> %u\n",
> + tididx, uctxt->ctxt);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (tidctrl == 0x3)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + rcventry = tidbase + tididx + (tidctrl - 1);
> +
> + spin_lock(&fd->rb_lock);
> + node = mmu_rb_search_by_entry(&fd->tid_rb_root, rcventry);
> + if (!node) {
> + spin_unlock(&fd->rb_lock);
> + return -EBADF;
> + }
> + rb_erase(&node->rbnode, &fd->tid_rb_root);
> + spin_unlock(&fd->rb_lock);
> + if (grp)
> + *grp = node->grp;
> + clear_tid_node(fd, fd->subctxt, node);
> + return 0;
> +}
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
