Hello James Bottomley,
The patch 3417c1b5cb1f: "ses: Fix problems with simple enclosures"
from Dec 8, 2015, leads to the following static checker warning:
drivers/scsi/ses.c:103 ses_recv_diag()
info: return a literal instead of 'ret'
drivers/scsi/ses.c
86 static int ses_recv_diag(struct scsi_device *sdev, int page_code,
87 void *buf, int bufflen)
88 {
89 int ret;
90 unsigned char cmd[] = {
91 RECEIVE_DIAGNOSTIC,
92 1, /* Set PCV bit */
93 page_code,
94 bufflen >> 8,
95 bufflen & 0xff,
96 0
97 };
98 unsigned char recv_page_code;
99
100 ret = scsi_execute_req(sdev, cmd, DMA_FROM_DEVICE, buf, bufflen,
101 NULL, SES_TIMEOUT, SES_RETRIES, NULL);
102 if (unlikely(!ret))
103 return ret;
This code works, but why is it unlikely() that scsi_execute_req() will
succeed?
104
105 recv_page_code = ((unsigned char *)buf)[0];
106
107 if (likely(recv_page_code == page_code))
108 return ret;
109
110 /* successful diagnostic but wrong page code. This happens to some
111 * USB devices, just print a message and pretend there was an error */
112
113 sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev,
114 "Wrong diagnostic page; asked for %d got %u\n",
115 page_code, recv_page_code);
116
117 return -EINVAL;
We sort of mixing a bunch of different types of error codes here aren't
we? Shouldn't this be "return DRIVER_ERROR << 24;" like how
scsi_execute_req() does it? I don't think the callers care.
118 }
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
