On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:39:12 +0300
Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote:
sebastien dugue sebastien.du...@bull.net wrote:
@@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ struct ib_cq *mlx4_ib_create_cq(struct ib_device
*ibdev, int entries, int vector
struct mlx4_uar *uar;
int err;
+ entries = roundup_pow_of_two(entries + 1);
if (entries 1 || entries dev-dev-caps.max_cqes)
Is the first check still needed here then?
not really, good catch - unless we need to protect here from negative
values coming
e.g from user space, I'll look this up, thanks
Or.
Or.
A small test shows that for n 2, we have roundup_pow_of_two(n) == 1. But
this is with the current implementation and on x86_64, so maybe on other
architectures the test may still be needed after all.
Sébastien.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
