Hello Yuval Mintz,
The patch d8c2c7e3404e: "qed*: Add support for VFs over legacy PFs"
from Aug 22, 2016, leads to the following static checker warning:
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_vf.c:297 qed_vf_pf_acquire()
warn: should this be a bitwise op?
drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_vf.c
289 /* Learn of the possibility of CMT */
290 if (IS_LEAD_HWFN(p_hwfn)) {
291 if (resp->pfdev_info.capabilities & PFVF_ACQUIRE_CAP_100G) {
292 DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn, "100g VF\n");
293 p_hwfn->cdev->num_hwfns = 2;
294 }
295 }
296
297 if (!p_iov->b_pre_fp_hsi &&
298 ETH_HSI_VER_MINOR &&
299 (resp->pfdev_info.minor_fp_hsi < ETH_HSI_VER_MINOR)) {
It looks like this code works correctly. I think the ETH_HSI_VER_MINOR
check is to silence a static checker warning because otherwise we are
occasionally comparing an unsigned with less than zero? (Although I
think most static checkers will still complain so maybe that's not
true?). Anyway, it's weird code.
It would probably be more clear to say "ETH_HSI_VER_MINOR > 0 &&".
When we're talking about comparisons to zero then it's idiomatic to use
"foo != 0" if we're talking about the number zero or strcmp() functions.
If it's used as a bool then we would say "!foo"...
300 DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
301 "PF is using older fastpath HSI; %02x.%02x is configured\n",
302 ETH_HSI_VER_MAJOR, resp->pfdev_info.minor_fp_hsi);
303 }
304
305 exit:
306 qed_vf_pf_req_end(p_hwfn, rc);
307
308 return rc;
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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
