Re: [PATCH v2 net 0/5] net: ipa: minor bug fixes

From: Jakub Kicinski
Date: Fri Oct 30 2020 - 20:24:09 EST


On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:50:52 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:
> On 10/29/20 11:11 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:41:43 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:
> >> This series fixes several bugs. They are minor, in that the code
> >> currently works on supported platforms even without these patches
> >> applied, but they're bugs nevertheless and should be fixed.
> >
> > By which you mean "it seems to work just fine most of the time" or "the
> > current code does not exercise this paths/functionally these bugs don't
> > matter for current platforms".
>
> The latter, although for patch 3 I'm not 100% sure.
>
> Case by case:
> Patch 1:
> It works. I inquired what the consequence of passing this
> wrong buffer pointer was, and for the way we are using IPA
> it seems it's fine--the memory pointer we were assigning is
> not used, so it's OK. But we're assigning the wrong pointer.
> Patch 2:
> It works. Even though the bit field is 1 bit wide (not two)
> we never actually write a value greater than 1, so we don't
> cause a problem. But the definition is incorrect.
> Patch 3:
> It works, but on the SDM845 we should be assigning the endpoints
> to use resource group 1 (they are 0 by default). The way we
> currently use this upstream we don't have other endpoints
> competing for resources, so I think this is fine. SC7180 we
> will assign endpoints to resource group 0, which is the default.
> Patch 4:
> It works. This is like patch 2; we define the number of these
> things incorrectly, but the way we currently use them we never
> exceed the limit in a broken way.
> Patch 5:
> It works. The maximum number of supported groups is even,
> and if a (smaller) odd number are used the remainder are
> programmed with 0, which is appropriate for undefined
> fields.
>
> If you have any concerns about back-porting these fixes I
> think I'm comfortable posting them for net-next instead.
> I debated that before sending them out. Please request that
> if it's what you think would be best.

Looks like these patches apply cleanly to net-next, so I put them there.

Thanks!