This is harmless because we do the same thing either way but, from the
indenting, then it seems like lpfc_destroy_vport_work_array() was meant
to be inside the if statement.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
The static checker complains about some of the other indents as well.
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c:708 lpfc_hba_init_link_fc_topology() warn: bad indenting.
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c:1978 lpfc_parse_vpd() warn: bad indenting.
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c:8116 lpfc_sli4_pci_mem_setup() warn: bad indenting.
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
index 0b2c53a..f8fd364 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
@@ -2822,7 +2822,7 @@ lpfc_online(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
}
vports = lpfc_create_vport_work_array(phba);
- if (vports != NULL)
+ if (vports != NULL) {
for (i = 0; i <= phba->max_vports && vports[i] != NULL; i++) {
struct Scsi_Host *shost;
shost = lpfc_shost_from_vport(vports[i]);
@@ -2840,6 +2840,7 @@ lpfc_online(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
spin_unlock_irq(shost->host_lock);
}
lpfc_destroy_vport_work_array(phba, vports);
+ }
lpfc_unblock_mgmt_io(phba);
return 0;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
