On Oct 19 09:34, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 01:30:39PM +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote: > > @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static uint16_t nvme_map_prp(NvmeCtrl *n, uint64_t > > prp1, uint64_t prp2, > > trace_pci_nvme_map_prp(trans_len, len, prp1, prp2, num_prps); > > > > if (unlikely(!prp1)) { > > - trace_pci_nvme_err_invalid_prp(); > > + trace_pci_nvme_err_invalid_prp1_missing(); > > Why is address 0 considered a missing entry? Some embedded systems > consider that a valid address. > > Otherwise, the offset checks look correct. And I realize the check for 0 > predates this patch anyway, but it's not the correct thing to do: as > long as the host requests a properly aligned address, and 0 is aligned, > the controller should attempt to use it. >
Uhm. That's a good point.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature