I would like to drop this patch.


Actually I was trying to simulate the code block by generating assembly code
which looked like  as shown below.  But later I realized it does not
fit with present scenario.
Its for different scenario.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 80483cb:	83 ec 2c             	sub    $0x2c,%esp
 80483ce:	66 c7 44 24 1e e1 2e 	movw   $0x2ee1,0x1e(%esp)
 80483d5:	66 c7 44 24 1c e1 2e 	movw   $0x2ee1,0x1c(%esp)
 80483dc:	0f b7 44 24 1c       	movzwl 0x1c(%esp),%eax
 80483e1:	c1 e0 04             	shl    $0x4,%eax
 80483e4:	88 44 24 1b          	mov    %al,0x1b(%esp)
 80483e8:	0f b6 5c 24 1b       	movzbl 0x1b(%esp),%ebx
 80483ed:	0f b7 4c 24 1c       	movzwl 0x1c(%esp),%ecx
 80483f2:	0f b7 54 24 1e       	movzwl 0x1e(%esp),%edx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Following assembly code looks very near to present scenario.
And  there is no data loss .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 804839a:	83 ec 10             	sub    $0x10,%esp
 804839d:	66 c7 44 24 0e e1 2e 	movw   $0x2ee1,0xe(%esp)
 80483a4:	66 c7 44 24 0c e1 2e 	movw   $0x2ee1,0xc(%esp)
 80483ab:	0f b7 44 24 0c       	movzwl 0xc(%esp),%eax
 80483b0:	ba 00 00 00 00       	mov    $0x0,%edx
 80483b5:	0f a4 c2 04          	shld   $0x4,%eax,%edx
 80483b9:	c1 e0 04             	shl    $0x4,%eax
 80483bc:	89 04 24             	mov    %eax,(%esp)
 80483bf:	89 54 24 04          	mov    %edx,0x4(%esp)
 80483c3:	b8 00 00 00 00       	mov    $0x0,%eax
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry for the inconvenience.


Regarding endian issue:
--------------------------------------
   Can Rajesh or Dhananjay comment on it ?
   Is "le64_to_cpu"  there intentionally ??



Regards
santosh


On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Dan Carpenter [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 10:31:27PM +0530, santosh nayak wrote:

quoted

From: Santosh Nayak <redacted>

'mac_hi' and 'mac_lo' are 32 bit unsinged int but we are modifing
64 bit of memory during mac calculation. To fix this issue define
a local variable of 64 bit and do mac calculation.

I'm not seeing any memory corruption.  How do you figure?

quoted

Remove 'le64_to_cpu' to fix endian issue.

I've add Dhananjay to the CC list to comment on the endian change.

regards,
dan carpenter

quoted

Signed-off-by: Santosh Nayak <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c |    7 ++++---
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c
index 0f81287..7ea930b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c

@@ -1069,7 +1069,8 @@ int netxen_get_flash_mac_addr(struct netxen_adapter *adapter, u64 *mac)

 int netxen_p3_get_mac_addr(struct netxen_adapter *adapter, u64 *mac)
 {
-     uint32_t crbaddr, mac_hi, mac_lo;
+     uint32_t crbaddr;
+     u64 mac_hi, mac_lo;
      int pci_func = adapter->ahw.pci_func;

      crbaddr = CRB_MAC_BLOCK_START +

@@ -1079,9 +1080,9 @@ int netxen_p3_get_mac_addr(struct netxen_adapter *adapter, u64 *mac)

      mac_hi = NXRD32(adapter, crbaddr+4);

      if (pci_func & 1)
-             *mac = le64_to_cpu((mac_lo >> 16) | ((u64)mac_hi << 16));
+             *mac = (mac_lo >> 16) | (mac_hi << 16);
      else
-             *mac = le64_to_cpu((u64)mac_lo | ((u64)mac_hi << 32));
+             *mac = mac_lo | (mac_hi << 32);

      return 0;
 }
--
1.7.4.4

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