Quoting Dan Carpenter (2024-06-13 20:58:40)
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:41:45PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > ---
> > .../staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 ++--
> > .../staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.h | 5 +++++
> > .../staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_dev.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > index 54467be8c371..67d853f5f2a0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > @@ -804,7 +804,7 @@ int vchiq_initialise(struct vchiq_state *state, struct vchiq_instance **instance
> > * block forever.
> > */
> > for (i = 0; i < VCHIQ_INIT_RETRIES; i++) {
> > - if (state)
> > + if (vchiq_remote_initialised(state))
> > break;
> > usleep_range(500, 600);
> > }
>
> :/ In the original code, this would either break on the first iteration
> or fail. The diff looked like this:
>
> for (i = 0; i < VCHIQ_INIT_RETRIES; i++) {
> - state = vchiq_get_state();
> if (state)
> break;
>
> I feel bad for not spotting this. A static checker which looked at
Definitely don't feel bad - I'm pretty sure I looked through the patch
on it's way through too and missed it then!
I only spotted this once I went deeper and was doing more rework, so it
suddenly stood out with more context.
Unfortunately - it's one of the pains of limited context in diffs in a
mail client I think.
--
Kieran
> diffs could have made this work, but all of our tools look at a momement
> in time instead of looking at the change over time.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
