On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:45:35AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The "+" operation has higher precedence than "?:" and ->msi_cap is
> > always non-zero here so the original statement is equivalent to:
> >
> > entry->mask_pos = PCI_MSI_MASK_64;
> >
> > Which wasn't the intent.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Ouch, my fault, sorry about that. Thanks for finding this. I put
> this in my for-linus branch and will try to get this in before
> v3.10-rc1.
>
> How did you find this? I guess MSI didn't work right on a device with
> 32-bit message address and per-vector masking?
>
Static analysis. I have a check that complains about every
condition like:
if (foo + bar) { ...
It has too many false positives to foist on the public though.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
