linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: green@linuxhacker.ru
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>,
	Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] staging/lustre/lnet: Don't call roundup_pow_of_two on zero in LNetEQAlloc
Date: Sat,  6 Feb 2016 02:12:12 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1454742732-2232567-1-git-send-email-green@linuxhacker.ru> (raw)

From: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>

roundup_pow_of_two return when called on a zero argument is
undefined, so don't call it like that.

This fixes a problem introduced by commit 322489d9d551
("staging/lustre: Use roundup_pow_of_two() in LNetEQAlloc()")
since 0 is a valid count parameter for LNetEQAlloc. Also manifesting
itself as an annoying kernel warning:
LNet: 3486:0:(lib-eq.c:85:LNetEQAlloc()) EQ callback is guaranteed to get every event, do you still want to set eqcount 1 for polling event which will have locking overhead? Please contact with developer to confirm

Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/lib-eq.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/lib-eq.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/lib-eq.c
index 64f94a6..bfbc313 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/lib-eq.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/lib-eq.c
@@ -79,7 +79,8 @@ LNetEQAlloc(unsigned int count, lnet_eq_handler_t callback,
 	 * overflow, they don't skip entries, so the queue has the same
 	 * apparent capacity at all times */
 
-	count = roundup_pow_of_two(count);
+	if (count)
+		count = roundup_pow_of_two(count);
 
 	if (callback != LNET_EQ_HANDLER_NONE && count != 0)
 		CWARN("EQ callback is guaranteed to get every event, do you still want to set eqcount %d for polling event which will have locking overhead? Please contact with developer to confirm\n", count);
-- 
2.1.0

                 reply	other threads:[~2016-02-06  7:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1454742732-2232567-1-git-send-email-green@linuxhacker.ru \
    --to=green@linuxhacker.ru \
    --cc=andreas.dilger@intel.com \
    --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).