lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] net: stmmac: fix maxmtu assignment to be within valid range
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Kweh, Hock Leong
<hock.leong.kweh@intel.com> wrote:
> From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@intel.com>
>
> There is no checking valid value of maxmtu when getting it from device tree.
> This resolution added the checking condition to ensure the assignment is
> made within a valid range.

> changelog v4:
> * add print warning message when maxmtu > max_mtu as well

Yep.

> * add maxmtu = JUMBO_LEN into each *_default_data() at stmmac_pci.c

Yep.

But see comment below.

P.S. And perhaps next time send into our internal mailing list first for review.

> @@ -3345,8 +3345,14 @@ int stmmac_dvr_probe(struct device *device,
> ndev->max_mtu = JUMBO_LEN;
> else
> ndev->max_mtu = SKB_MAX_HEAD(NET_SKB_PAD + NET_IP_ALIGN);
> - if (priv->plat->maxmtu < ndev->max_mtu)
> + if ((priv->plat->maxmtu < ndev->max_mtu) &&
> + (priv->plat->maxmtu >= ndev->min_mtu))
> ndev->max_mtu = priv->plat->maxmtu;

> + else if ((priv->plat->maxmtu < ndev->min_mtu) ||
> + (priv->plat->maxmtu > ndev->max_mtu))
> + netdev_warn(priv->dev,

What is the difference to just 'else'? (Returning back to my initial
proposal, I don't remember telling anything about 'else if' concept)

> + "%s: warning: maxmtu having invalid value (%d)\n",
> + __func__, priv->plat->maxmtu);

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-07 01:13    [W:0.032 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site