Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:23:41 -0400
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To:        hiren panchasara <hiren@freebsd.org>
Cc:        svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r249800 - head/sys/dev/bwn
Message-ID:  <201304291123.41402.jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALCpEUH2NZHpx6e7SCJRFkHZo2TOzXiZRFt_9UpgVO9%2Bb13kFA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <201304231302.r3ND2w5V024981@svn.freebsd.org> <CALCpEUExXu%2BCsM4ORr=Z=tMXvLJSqQn-sEOwY0aQ6GHCHeA50w@mail.gmail.com> <CALCpEUH2NZHpx6e7SCJRFkHZo2TOzXiZRFt_9UpgVO9%2Bb13kFA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:06:16 pm hiren panchasara wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:46 AM, hiren panchasara <hiren@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> On 23 April 2013 12:19, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >>> ... you know, even though it doesn't have an active maintainer, do you
> >>> have test hardware, and why didn't you just bounce a patch to
> >>> -wireless for review?
> >
> > My bad. I proposed this change initially.
> >>>
> >>> We don't bite you know!
> >>
> >> that you need to emphasize this does not comfort me. ;)
> >>
> >> reverted in 249812.
> >
> > Will look at john's suggestions and fix it correctly.
> 
> John,
> 
> Does this look okay?
> 
> % svn diff
> Index: if_bwn.c
> ===================================================================
> --- if_bwn.c    (revision 250036)
> +++ if_bwn.c    (working copy)
> @@ -9240,9 +9240,9 @@
>             BUS_DMASYNC_PREWRITE);
> 
>         /*
> -        * Setup RX buf descriptor
> +        * Restore RX buf descriptor
>          */
> -       dr->setdesc(dr, desc, paddr, meta->mt_m->m_len -
> +       dr->setdesc(dr, desc, meta->mt_paddr, meta->mt_m->m_len -
>             sizeof(*hdr), 0, 0, 0);
>         return (error);
>  }

I would leave the comment alone.  In the common case you do allocate a new 
mbuf so you aren't restoring the descriptor but setting it up with a new 
address.  The code change looks correct.

-- 
John Baldwin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201304291123.41402.jhb>