On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:07:55PM +0530, Subhransu S. Prusty wrote:

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:40:21PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

...

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 06:20:40PM +0530, Subhransu S. Prusty wrote:

...

...

+static inline unsigned int sst_assign_pvt_id(struct intel_sst_drv *sst_drv_ctx) +{

• unsigned int local;
• spin_lock(&sst_drv_ctx->block_lock);
• sst_drv_ctx->pvt_id++;
• if (sst_drv_ctx->pvt_id > MAX_BLOCKS)

• sst_drv_ctx->pvt_id = 1;
  

• local = sst_drv_ctx->pvt_id;
• spin_unlock(&sst_drv_ctx->block_lock);
• return local;

+}

...

The comments about overflow continue to apply here.

Vinod has already replied to you regarding this, below is a snippet from the conversation earlier. Is there anything else we need to address?

Yes, and as I said I just don't buy that argument. It's code that has fairly clear problems on inspection, saying "we've not hit the problem yet" isn't particularly persuasive. Something like a new firmware could easily trigger problems.