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? > > > > 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 cheers, benedikt
