[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/pci: Remove unnecessary check in VF value computation
On 02/18/2014 05:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 13.02.14 at 10:48, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:On 12.02.14 at 22:05, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:This test is already performed a couple of lines above.Except that it's the wrong code you remove:No opinion on this alternative at all? Sorry Jan, I didn't realize you were waiting for me on this.Yes, your version is fine although to be honest I don't see how the original patch had any issues with division by zero since we'd still be inside the 'if (stride)' clause. But as I said, either version is OK with me so you can add Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> -boris Jan@@ -639,11 +639,7 @@ static u64 read_pci_mem_bar(u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 slot, u8func, u8 bir, int vf)if ( vf < 0 || (vf && vf % stride) ) return 0; if ( stride ) - { - if ( vf % stride ) - return 0; vf /= stride; - }Note how this second check carefully avoids a division by zero. From what I can tell I think that I simply forgot to remove the right side of the earlier || after having converted it to the safer variant inside the if(). Hence I think we instead want: x86/MSI: don't risk division by zero The check in question is redundant with the one in the immediately following if(), where dividing by zero gets carefully avoided. Spotted-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> --- a/xen/arch/x86/msi.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/msi.c @@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ static u64 read_pci_mem_bar(u16 seg, u8 return 0; base = pos + PCI_SRIOV_BAR; vf -= PCI_BDF(bus, slot, func) + offset; - if ( vf < 0 || (vf && vf % stride) ) + if ( vf < 0 ) return 0; if ( stride ) { _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |