e1000e: e1000e_cyclecounter_read(): fix er32(SYSTIML) overflow check

If two consecutive reads of the counter are the same, it is also
not an overflow.  "systimel_1 < systimel_2" should be
"systimel_1 <= systimel_2".

Before the patch, we could perform an *erroneous* correction:

Let's say that systimel_1 == systimel_2 == 0xffffffff.
"systimel_1 < systimel_2" is false, we think it's an overflow,
we read "systimeh = er32(SYSTIMH)" which meanwhile had incremented,
and use "(systimeh << 32) + systimel_2" value which is 2^32 too large.

Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
CC: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org
Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
index 4969f647db888a3b677b7a952ff39e63d4759552..02c64bcda71d8de7b0acc99bb8fb971b2eacfb31 100644 (file)
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
@@ -4287,7 +4287,7 @@ static cycle_t e1000e_cyclecounter_read(const struct cyclecounter *cc)
        systimeh = er32(SYSTIMH);
        systimel_2 = er32(SYSTIML);
        /* Check for overflow. If there was no overflow, use the values */
-       if (systimel_1 < systimel_2) {
+       if (systimel_1 <= systimel_2) {
                systim = (cycle_t)systimel_1;
                systim |= (cycle_t)systimeh << 32;
        } else {