Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1635182 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-03 20:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-05-03 21:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[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
| From | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 20:00 +0200 |
| Subject | [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering |
| Message-ID | <tD6Jc-a7-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tD7lT-DA-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1635182 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tD88h-1cl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1635182 |
Hi Chad, Quoting Chad Dupuis <chad.dupuis@cavium.com>: > 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 >> Oh OK, great. >> 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. > I'll send a patch for this shortly. Thanks for your comments. -- Gustavo A. R. Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web