svn commit: r249800 - head/sys/dev/bwn

[John Baldwin]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:06:16 pm hiren panchasara wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:46 AM, hiren panchasara <hiren at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Eitan Adler <eadler at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> On 23 April 2013 12:19, Adrian Chadd <adrian at 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