On 2017/3/23 19:42, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 22/03/17 06:27, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> Keep these four variables type consistent with the paramters of function
>> __alloc_and_insert_iova_range and the members of struct iova:
>>
>> 1. static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad,
>> unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn,
>>
>> 2. struct iova {
>> unsigned long pfn_hi;
>> unsigned long pfn_lo;
>>
>> In fact, limit_pfn is most likely larger than 32 bits on DMA64.
>
> FWIW if pad_size manages to overflow an int something's probably gone
> horribly wrong, but there's no harm in making it consistent with
> everything else here. However, given that patch #6 makes this irrelevant
> anyway, do we really need to bother?
Because I'm not sure whether patch #6 can be applied or not.
>
> Robin.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leiz...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/iova.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> index b7268a1..8ba8b496 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> @@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain *iovad,
>> struct iova *free)
>> * Computes the padding size required, to make the start address
>> * naturally aligned on the power-of-two order of its size
>> */
>> -static unsigned int
>> -iova_get_pad_size(unsigned int size, unsigned int limit_pfn)
>> +static unsigned long
>> +iova_get_pad_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn)
>> {
>> return (limit_pfn + 1 - size) & (__roundup_pow_of_two(size) - 1);
>> }
>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct
>> iova_domain *iovad,
>> struct rb_node *prev, *curr = NULL;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> unsigned long saved_pfn;
>> - unsigned int pad_size = 0;
>> + unsigned long pad_size = 0;
>>
>> /* Walk the tree backwards */
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags);
>>
>
>
> .
>
--
Thanks!
BestRegards
