Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:00:29AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> 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:
>
> It looks like that you can replace I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0 with
> I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER and get rid of all places with
> I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0.
No. I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER is iw_op_code and I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0 is
iw_op_ver two different things.
Chien
--
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
