From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [Bug #14016] mm/ipw2200 regression Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:51:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20090826095118.GA26280@cmpxchg.org> References: <_yaHeGjHEzG.A.FIH.7sGlKB@chimera> <84144f020908252309u5cff8afdh2214577ca4db9b5d@mail.gmail.com> <20090826082741.GA25955@cmpxchg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: Pekka Enberg Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090826082741.GA25955-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:27:41AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > 64 pages, presumably 256k, for fw->boot_size while current ipw > firmware images have ~188k. I don't know jack squat about this > driver, but given the field name and the struct: > > struct ipw_fw { > __le32 ver; > __le32 boot_size; > __le32 ucode_size; > __le32 fw_size; > u8 data[0]; > }; > > fw->boot_size alone being that big sounds a bit fishy to me. Scrap that, I just noticed the second call to ipw_load_firmware() a few lines later... :) Hannes 'when logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead...'