net: more timeouts that reach -1

These were not previously reported by me. ------------------------------>8-------------8<--------------------------------- with while (timeout-- > 0); timeout reaches -1 after the loop, so the tests below are off by one.

Signed-off-by Roel Kluin <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/arm/ks8695net.c |    2 +-
 drivers/net/jme.c           |    3 ++-
 drivers/net/ucc_geth_mii.c  |    2 +-
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

drivers/net/arm/ks8695net.c +1 -1

index 1cf2f94..f3a1274 100644
@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ ks8695_reset(struct ks8695_priv *ksp)
 		msleep(1);
 	}
 
-	if (reset_timeout == 0) {
+	if (reset_timeout < 0) {
 		dev_crit(ksp->dev,
 			 "Timeout waiting for DMA engines to reset\n");
 		/* And blithely carry on */

drivers/net/jme.c +0 -0

index 08b3405..0173ed0 100644

drivers/net/ucc_geth_mii.c +1 -2

index 5463591..7b1b46c 100644
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ static int uec_mdio_reset(struct mii_bus *bus)
 
 	mutex_unlock(&bus->mdio_lock);
 
-	if (timeout <= 0) {
+	if (timeout < 0) {
 		printk(KERN_ERR "%s: The MII Bus is stuck!\n", bus->name);
 		return -EBUSY;
 	}
--

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:15:57 +0100, Roel Kluin wrote

Quoted 15 lines

These were not previously reported by me. ------------------------------>8-------------8<--------------------------------- with while (timeout-- > 0); timeout reaches -1 after the loop, so the tests below are off by one.

Signed-off-by Roel Kluin <[email protected]>

---

drivers/net/jme.c +0 -0

index 08b3405..0173ed0 100644
@@ -957,7 +957,8 @@ jme_process_receive(struct jme_adapter *jme, int limit)
               goto out_inc;
 

drivers/net/jme.c jme_process_receive(struct jme_adapter *jme, int limit) · line 964

Quoted 7 lines

drivers/net/jme.c +2 -1

       i = atomic_read(&rxring->next_to_clean);
-     while (limit-- > 0) {
+     while (limit > 0) {
+             limit--;
               rxdesc = rxring->desc;
               rxdesc += i;
 

There should be no difference after this modification. The return value of this function is: "limit > 0 ? limit : 0;"

Guo-Fu Tseng

Quoted 2 lines

There should be no difference after this modification. The return value of this function is: "limit > 0 ? limit : 0;"

There is:
In the last iteration limit is 1 during the test before it is decremented to 0.

rxdesc = rxring->desc;
rxdesc += i;

If then we break out of the loop by the 'goto out;', we continue with:

out:

        atomic_set(&rxring->next_to_clean, i);

out_inc:

        atomic_inc(&jme->rx_cleaning);

but since limit is already decremented, 0 is returned.

Quoted 3 lines

Guo-Fu Tseng

Roel

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:37:30 +0100, roel kluin wrote

Quoted 14 lines · Guo-Fu Tseng

Quoted 2 lines

There should be no difference after this modification. The return value of this function is: "limit > 0 ? limit : 0;"

There is:
In the last iteration limit is 1 during the test before it is decremented to 0.

rxdesc = rxring->desc;
rxdesc += i;

If then we break out of the loop by the 'goto out;', we continue with:

out:

        atomic_set(&rxring->next_to_clean, i);

Quoted 8 lines

out_inc:

        atomic_inc(&jme->rx_cleaning);

but since limit is already decremented, 0 is returned.

Quoted 2 lines

Guo-Fu Tseng

Roel

I see.
But the correct patch should be following one, right?

===================================================================

jme.c +2 -1

@@ -958,13 +958,14 @@
 		goto out_inc;
 
 	i = atomic_read(&rxring->next_to_clean);
-	while (limit-- > 0) {
+	while (limit > 0) {
 		rxdesc = rxring->desc;
 		rxdesc += i;
 
 		if ((rxdesc->descwb.flags & RXWBFLAG_OWN) ||
 		!(rxdesc->descwb.desccnt & RXWBDCNT_WBCPL))
 			goto out;
+		--limit;
 
 		desccnt = rxdesc->descwb.desccnt & RXWBDCNT_DCNT;
 

Guo-Fu Tseng

Here are all three patches again with another issue I spotted in drivers/net/ucc_geth_mii.c:

After my patch it still wouldn't err, because timeout was unsigned.

These were not previously reported by me. ------------------------------>8-------------8<--------------------------------- with while (timeout-- > 0); timeout reaches -1 after the loop, so the tests below are off by one.

These were not previously reported by me. ------------------------------>8-------------8<--------------------------------- with while (timeout-- > 0); timeout reaches -1 after the loop, so the tests below are off by one.

Signed-off-by Roel Kluin <[email protected]>