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://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan > > 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. > 1047 { > vvv CID 1527139: Control flow issues (NO_EFFECT) > vvv This greater-than-or-equal-to-zero comparison of an unsigned value is always true. "waitpin >= 0U". > 1048 return waitpin >= 0 && waitpin < gpmc_nr_waitpins; > 1049 } > 1050 > 1051 static int gpmc_alloc_waitpin(struct gpmc_device *gpmc, > 1052 struct gpmc_settings *p) > 1053 { > > If this is a false positive, please let us know so we can mark it as > such, or teach the Coverity rules to be smarter. If not, please make > sure fixes get into linux-next. :) For patches fixing this, please > include these lines (but double-check the "Fixes" first): > > Reported-by: coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1527139 ("Control flow issues") > Fixes: 89aed3cd5cb9 ("memory: omap-gpmc: wait pin additions") > > Thanks for your attention! > cheers, -roger
