On 16/01/2025 16:18, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
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.
OK, I'll send a patch later today. Colin
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x68C287DFC6A80226.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
