@@ -1517,7 +1517,8 @@ lpfc_sli4_clear_fcf_rr_bmask(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
{
struct lpfc_fcf_pri *fcf_pri;
struct lpfc_fcf_pri *next_fcf_pri;
- memset(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, 0, sizeof(*phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask));
+
+ bitmap_zero(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX);
spin_lock_irq(&phba->hbalock);
list_for_each_entry_safe(fcf_pri, next_fcf_pri,
&phba->fcf.fcf_pri_list, list) {
@@ -2476,8 +2477,8 @@ static int lpfc_sli4_fcf_pri_list_add(struct lpfc_hba *phba,
if (new_fcf_pri->fcf_rec.priority <= current_fcf_pri) {
list_add(&new_fcf_pri->list, &phba->fcf.fcf_pri_list);
if (new_fcf_pri->fcf_rec.priority < current_fcf_pri) {
- memset(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, 0,
- sizeof(*phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask));
+ bitmap_zero(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask,
+ LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX);
/* fcfs_at_this_priority_level = 1; */
phba->fcf.eligible_fcf_cnt = 1;
} else
@@ -20220,8 +20220,7 @@ lpfc_check_next_fcf_pri_level(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
* Clear the rr_bmask and set all of the bits that are at this
* priority.
*/
- memset(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, 0,
- sizeof(*phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask));
+ bitmap_zero(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX);
spin_lock_irq(&phba->hbalock);
list_for_each_entry(fcf_pri, &phba->fcf.fcf_pri_list, list) {
if (fcf_pri->fcf_rec.flag & LPFC_FCF_FLOGI_FAILED)
When the 'phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask' bitmap is cleared, the code makes the assumption that it fits in only 1 long. Depending on the value of LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX, this may be wrong and only part of the bitmap would be cleared. Up to now, LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX is 32, so it is not an issue. But using bitmap_zero() is more future proof. Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> --- drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c | 7 ++++--- drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c | 3 +-- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)