Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1635182
| From | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering |
| Date | 2017-05-03 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tD6Jc-a7-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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 intentional?
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
Thank you
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com> - 2017-05-03 20:00 +0200 Re: [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> - 2017-05-03 20:40 +0200 Re: [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com> - 2017-05-03 21:30 +0200
csiph-web