On 23/08/2019 12:23, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 09:52:30AM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The subtraction of the two pointers is automatically scaled by the
>> size of the size of the object the pointers point to, so the division
>> by sizeof(*i2400m->barker) is incorrect. Fix this by removing the
>> division. Also make index an unsigned int to clean up a checkpatch
>> warning.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Extra sizeof expression")
>> Fixes: aba3792ac2d7 ("wimax/i2400m: rework bootrom initialization to be more flexible")
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c | 3 +--
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c
>> index 489cba9b284d..599a703af6eb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c
>> @@ -399,8 +399,7 @@ int i2400m_is_boot_barker(struct i2400m *i2400m,
>> * associated with the device. */
>> if (i2400m->barker
>> && !memcmp(buf, i2400m->barker, sizeof(i2400m->barker->data))) {
>> - unsigned index = (i2400m->barker - i2400m_barker_db)
>> - / sizeof(*i2400m->barker);
>> + unsigned int index = i2400m->barker - i2400m_barker_db;
>> d_printf(2, dev, "boot barker cache-confirmed #%u/%08x\n",
>> index, le32_to_cpu(i2400m->barker->data[0]));
>
> It's only used for this debug output. You may as well just delete it.
>
>> return 0;
Deleting wrong debug code vs fixing debug code? I'd rather go for the
latter.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
