On 05/03/17 11:29, Chad Dupuis wrote: > > On Wed, 3 May 2017, 1:58pm, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > >> >> Hello everybody, >> >> While looking into Coverity ID 1402011 I ran into the following piece of code >> at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_io.c:2057: >> >> /* Fill FC header */ >> fc_hdr = &(tm_req->req_fc_hdr); >> sid = fcport->sid; >> did = fcport->rdata->ids.port_id; >> __fc_fill_fc_hdr(fc_hdr, FC_RCTL_DD_UNSOL_CMD, sid, did, >> FC_TYPE_FCP, FC_FC_FIRST_SEQ | FC_FC_END_SEQ | >> FC_FC_SEQ_INIT, 0); >> >> The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to >> __fc_fill_fc_hdr() function do not match the ordering of the parameters: >> >> _sid_ is passed to _did_ >> _did_ is passed to _sid_ >> >> this is the function prototype: >> >> static inline void __fc_fill_fc_hdr(struct fc_frame_header *fh, >> enum fc_rctl r_ctl, >> u32 did, u32 sid, enum fc_fh_type type, >> u32 f_ctl, u32 parm_offset) >> >> My question here is if this is intentionala? > > This may have been but this code has been superseded by commit > be086e7c53f1fac51eed14523b28f2214b548dd2.B what git tree is that in? Thanks. >> In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it would be great >> to hear any comment about it. >> >> By the way... the same is happening at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_els.c:109 > > May be a bug here so you could send a patch. -- ~Randy
