On 08/11/2022 09:02, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote: > On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 10:56 +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: >> >> On 07/11/2022 10:53, Roger Quadros wrote: >>> Hi Benedikt, >>> >>> On 04/11/2022 21:33, coverity-bot wrote: >>>> Hello! >>>> >>>> This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by >>>> Coverity from a scan of next-20221104 as part of the linux-next scan project: >>>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscan.coverity.com%2Fprojects%2Flinux-next-weekly-scan&data=05%7C01%7Cbenedikt.niedermayr%40siemens.com%7C1a25cc8704524f24224108dac09dfab7%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638034081994087461%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=W1KlBKg9nwEDfFAbqW6Jw7v1d46HQLj8RX8wlZ9RHyc%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified >>>> lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits: >>>> >>>> Wed Nov 2 10:02:39 2022 -0400 >>>> 89aed3cd5cb9 ("memory: omap-gpmc: wait pin additions") >>>> >>>> Coverity reported the following: >>>> >>>> *** CID 1527139: Control flow issues (NO_EFFECT) >>>> drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c:1048 in gpmc_is_valid_waitpin() >>>> 1042 spin_unlock(&gpmc_mem_lock); >>>> 1043 } >>>> 1044 EXPORT_SYMBOL(gpmc_cs_free); >>>> 1045 >>>> 1046 static bool gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(u32 waitpin) >>> >>> We will need to change this waitpin argument to int. >>> In addition we will also need to change >>> struct gpmc_waitpin->pin and struct gpmc_setting->wait_pin >>> to int as in the code we are relying on GPMC_WAITPIN_INVALID logic which is -1. >> >> Another alternative with less churn is to leave them as u32 >> but make GPMC_WAITPIN_INVALID set to a large positive number. > Ok, I will fix that. > Do I need to send a new fix-patch on top the current patch series? > Or should I just send only the bugfix-patch for the coverity-bot? > A bugfix patch on current next is ok. Best regards, Krzysztof
