On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:06:54PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> 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?
This looks like a nice catch!
Reviewed-by: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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
--
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
