Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1578590
| From | Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | re: sfc: process RX event inner checksum flags |
| Date | 2017-02-10 17:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t9m5s-5JI-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi there,
not sure if this is a bug, or intentional, but CoverityScan picked up a
mismatch in arguments when calling efx_ef10_handle_rx_event_error() with
commit "sfc: process RX event inner checksum flags" that landed in
linux-next:
CID 1402067 (#1 of 1): Arguments in wrong order
(SWAPPED_ARGUMENTS)swapped_arguments: The positions of arguments in the
call to efx_ef10_handle_rx_event_errors do not match the ordering of the
parameters:
rx_l3_class is passed to rx_encap_hdr
rx_l4_class is passed to rx_l3_class
rx_encap_hdr is passed to rx_l4_class
The function in question has the prototype:
static u16 efx_ef10_handle_rx_event_errors(struct efx_channel *channel,
unsigned int n_packets,
unsigned int rx_encap_hdr,
unsigned int rx_l3_class,
unsigned int rx_l4_class,
const efx_qword_t *event)
...where as it it being called using:
flags |= efx_ef10_handle_rx_event_errors(channel, n_packets,
rx_l3_class, rx_l4_class, rx_encap_hdr, event);
Is this a bug or intentional?
Colin
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
re: sfc: process RX event inner checksum flags Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> - 2017-02-10 17:20 +0100 Re: sfc: process RX event inner checksum flags Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> - 2017-02-10 18:00 +0100
csiph-web