Hello everybody,
While looking into Coverity ID 1362263 I ran into the following piece
of code at drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_virtchnl.c:445:
445 if (vchnl_msg->iw_op_code == I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER) {
446 if (vchnl_msg->iw_op_ver != I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0)
447 vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
448 else
449 vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
450 return I40IW_SUCCESS;
451 }
The issue is that lines of code 447 and 449 are identical for
different branches.
My question here is if one of the branches should be modified, or the
entire _if_ statement replaced?
Maybe a patch like the following could be applied:
index f4d1368..48fd327 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_virtchnl.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_virtchnl.c
@@ -443,10 +443,7 @@ enum i40iw_status_code i40iw_vchnl_recv_pf(struct
i40iw_sc_dev *dev,
if (!dev->vchnl_up)
return I40IW_ERR_NOT_READY;
if (vchnl_msg->iw_op_code == I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER) {
- if (vchnl_msg->iw_op_ver != I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0)
- vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
- else
- vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
+ vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
return I40IW_SUCCESS;
}
for (iw_vf_idx = 0; iw_vf_idx <
I40IW_MAX_PE_ENABLED_VF_COUNT; iw_vf_idx++) {
What do you think?
I'd really appreciate any comment on this.
Thank you!
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
