| Message ID | 5495BE60.50301@simula.no (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Hal Rosenstock |
| Headers | show |
On 12/20/2014 8:22 PM, Vangelis Tasoulas wrote: > From a399cd7398a86b72541c628588365c252882cd80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Vangelis Tasoulas <vangelis@tasoulas.net> > Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:10:33 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] Fixes wrong assertion failed in osm_switch_get_lft_block() > when LIDs from the top LFT block (0xbfc0-0xbfff) are used. > > --- > opensm/osm_switch.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/opensm/osm_switch.c b/opensm/osm_switch.c > index 11efd54..a28ec28 100644 > --- a/opensm/osm_switch.c > +++ b/opensm/osm_switch.c > @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ boolean_t osm_switch_get_lft_block(IN const > osm_switch_t * p_sw, > if (base_lid_ho > p_sw->max_lid_ho) > return FALSE; > > - CL_ASSERT(base_lid_ho + IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE <= IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO); > + CL_ASSERT(base_lid_ho + IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE - 1 <= > IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO); What about using IB_LID_MCAST_START_HO (49152) instead of IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO (49151)? No additional arithemtic will be needed then. > memcpy(p_block, &(p_sw->lft[base_lid_ho]), IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE); > return TRUE; > } > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 12/21/2014 11:07 AM, Ilya Nelkenbaum wrote: > On 12/20/2014 8:22 PM, Vangelis Tasoulas wrote: >> From a399cd7398a86b72541c628588365c252882cd80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Vangelis Tasoulas <vangelis@tasoulas.net> >> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:10:33 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] Fixes wrong assertion failed in osm_switch_get_lft_block() >> when LIDs from the top LFT block (0xbfc0-0xbfff) are used. >> >> --- >> opensm/osm_switch.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/opensm/osm_switch.c b/opensm/osm_switch.c >> index 11efd54..a28ec28 100644 >> --- a/opensm/osm_switch.c >> +++ b/opensm/osm_switch.c >> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ boolean_t osm_switch_get_lft_block(IN const >> osm_switch_t * p_sw, >> if (base_lid_ho > p_sw->max_lid_ho) >> return FALSE; >> >> - CL_ASSERT(base_lid_ho + IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE <= IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO); >> + CL_ASSERT(base_lid_ho + IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE - 1 <= >> IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO); > What about using IB_LID_MCAST_START_HO (49152) instead of IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO (49151)? > No additional arithemtic will be needed then. This function is about the LFTs and not the MFTs, so having '<= IB_LID_MCAST_START_HO' would look a bit confusing -at least to me- at a first glance due to the equal sign. Less or equal to the first mcast LID? I understand the less, but why equal? > >> memcpy(p_block, &(p_sw->lft[base_lid_ho]), IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE); >> return TRUE; >> } >> >
On 12/21/2014 3:50 PM, Vangelis Tasoulas wrote: > On 12/21/2014 11:07 AM, Ilya Nelkenbaum wrote: >> On 12/20/2014 8:22 PM, Vangelis Tasoulas wrote: >>> From a399cd7398a86b72541c628588365c252882cd80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Vangelis Tasoulas <vangelis@tasoulas.net> >>> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:10:33 +0100 >>> Subject: [PATCH] Fixes wrong assertion failed in osm_switch_get_lft_block() >>> when LIDs from the top LFT block (0xbfc0-0xbfff) are used. >>> >>> --- >>> opensm/osm_switch.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/opensm/osm_switch.c b/opensm/osm_switch.c >>> index 11efd54..a28ec28 100644 >>> --- a/opensm/osm_switch.c >>> +++ b/opensm/osm_switch.c >>> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ boolean_t osm_switch_get_lft_block(IN const >>> osm_switch_t * p_sw, >>> if (base_lid_ho > p_sw->max_lid_ho) >>> return FALSE; >>> >>> - CL_ASSERT(base_lid_ho + IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE <= IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO); >>> + CL_ASSERT(base_lid_ho + IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE - 1 <= >>> IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO); >> What about using IB_LID_MCAST_START_HO (49152) instead of IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO (49151)? >> No additional arithemtic will be needed then. > > This function is about the LFTs and not the MFTs, so having '<= > IB_LID_MCAST_START_HO' would look a bit confusing -at least to me- at a > first glance due to the equal sign. Sounds reasonable. > > Less or equal to the first mcast LID? I understand the less, but why equal? > >> >>> memcpy(p_block, &(p_sw->lft[base_lid_ho]), IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE); >>> return TRUE; >>> } >>> >> > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 12/20/2014 1:22 PM, Vangelis Tasoulas wrote: > From a399cd7398a86b72541c628588365c252882cd80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Vangelis Tasoulas <vangelis@tasoulas.net> > Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:10:33 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] Fixes wrong assertion failed in osm_switch_get_lft_block() > when LIDs from the top LFT block (0xbfc0-0xbfff) are used. Thanks. Applied. -- Hal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From a399cd7398a86b72541c628588365c252882cd80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vangelis Tasoulas <vangelis@tasoulas.net> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:10:33 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Fixes wrong assertion failed in osm_switch_get_lft_block() when LIDs from the top LFT block (0xbfc0-0xbfff) are used. --- opensm/osm_switch.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/opensm/osm_switch.c b/opensm/osm_switch.c index 11efd54..a28ec28 100644 --- a/opensm/osm_switch.c +++ b/opensm/osm_switch.c @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ boolean_t osm_switch_get_lft_block(IN const osm_switch_t * p_sw, if (base_lid_ho > p_sw->max_lid_ho) return FALSE; - CL_ASSERT(base_lid_ho + IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE <= IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO); + CL_ASSERT(base_lid_ho + IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE - 1 <= IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO); memcpy(p_block, &(p_sw->lft[base_lid_ho]), IB_SMP_DATA_SIZE); return TRUE; } -- 1.9.1
From a399cd7398a86b72541c628588365c252882cd80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vangelis Tasoulas <vangelis@tasoulas.net> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:10:33 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Fixes wrong assertion failed in osm_switch_get_lft_block() when LIDs from the top LFT block (0xbfc0-0xbfff) are used. --- opensm/osm_switch.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) return TRUE; }