> On May 31, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 10:54 -0700, Himanshu Madhani wrote: >> static inline void * >> +qla25xx_copy_exlogin(struct qla_hw_data *ha, void *ptr, uint32_t >> **last_chain) >> +{ >> + struct qla2xxx_offld_chain *c = ptr; >> + >> + if (!ha->exlogin_buf) >> + return ptr; >> + >> + *last_chain = &c->type; >> + >> + c->type = htonl(DUMP_CHAIN_EXLOGIN); >> + c->chain_size = htonl(sizeof(struct qla2xxx_offld_chain) + >> + ha->exlogin_size); >> + c->size = htonl(ha->exlogin_size); > > Since this is not networking code, why is this code using htonl() instead of > cpu_to_be32()? > >> + c->addr_l = htonl(LSD(ha->exlogin_buf_dma)); >> + c->addr_h = htonl(MSD(ha->exlogin_buf_dma)); > > Please use cpu_to_be64() instead of this weird construct. > >> + uint32_t addr_l; >> + uint32_t addr_h; > > Please declare this as a single 64-bit variable instead of using this weird > split into two 32-bit variables. > > Thanks, > > Bart.
Sure. Will update patch with the correct construct. Thanks, - Himanshu
