2006-03-08 09:07:55

by Eric Sesterhenn

Subject: [Patch] Fix dead code in cdrom/gscd.c

hi,

this fixes Coverity Bugs #21 and #22. In both cases the
do { ... } while (result != 6 || result == 0x0E) just
finishes for result == 6, so the if(result != 6) doesnt
make much sense.

This patch simply removes the if statement, so the logic
stays the same.

Signed-off-by: Eric Sesterhenn <[email protected]>

--- linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm1/drivers/cdrom/gscd.c.orig 2006-03-08 09:56:30.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm1/drivers/cdrom/gscd.c 2006-03-08 09:58:18.000000000 +0100
@@ -695,10 +695,6 @@ static void cmd_read_b(char *pb, int cou
result = wait_drv_ready();
} while (result != 6 || result == 0x0E);

- if (result != 6) {
- cmd_end();
- return;
- }
#ifdef GSCD_DEBUG
printk("LOC_191 ");
#endif
@@ -763,11 +759,6 @@ static void cmd_read_w(char *pb, int cou
result = wait_drv_ready();
} while (result != 6 || result == 0x0E);

- if (result != 6) {
- cmd_end();
- return;
- }
-
for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
/* na, hier muss ich noch mal drueber nachdenken */
*pb = inw(GSCDPORT(2));

2006-03-08 11:37:59

by Daniel K.

Subject: Re: [Patch] Fix dead code in cdrom/gscd.c

Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> hi,
>
> this fixes Coverity Bugs #21 and #22. In both cases the
> do { ... } while (result != 6 || result == 0x0E) just

This is completely wrong, and should be fixed too.

Either

do { ... } while (result != 6)

is correct, or this is the result of a thinko, and it should be

do { ... } while (result != 6 && result != 0x0E)

in which case your patch is incorrect.

> finishes for result == 6, so the if(result != 6) doesnt
> make much sense.

Unless its presence is an indication of faulty logic in the while clause


Daniel K.