On Thu, 16 Jan 2025, Colin King (gmail) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Static analysis shows there is a potential issue in the following commit:
>
> commit 00048c2d5f113bb4e82a0a30dfc4ee12590b81f5
> Author: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue Jan 14 19:08:39 2025 +0200
>
> PCI: Add TLP Prefix reading to pcie_read_tlp_log()
>
>
> The issue is described as follows:
>
> unsigned int aer_tlp_log_len(struct pci_dev *dev, u32 aercc)
> {
> return PCIE_STD_NUM_TLP_HEADERLOG +
> (aercc & PCI_ERR_CAP_PREFIX_LOG_PRESENT) ?
> dev->eetlp_prefix_max : 0;
> }
>
>
> static analysis is warning that the left hand size of the ? operator is always
> true and so dev->eetlp_prefix_max is always being returned and the 0 is never
> returned (dead code).
>
> I suspect the expected behaviour is as follows:
>
> return PCIE_STD_NUM_TLP_HEADERLOG +
> ((aercc & PCI_ERR_CAP_PREFIX_LOG_PRESENT) ?
> dev->eetlp_prefix_max : 0);
>
> ..I'm reluctant to send a fix in case this is not the original intention.
Your fix looks correct, it should have the parenthesis due to operator
precedence rules. The intention is to calculate 4 DWs + optionally n E-E
TLP prefixes.
--
i.
