2021-06-01 11:09:47

by Jiapeng Chong

Subject: [PATCH] sfc-falcon: Fix missing error code in ef4_reset_up()

The error code is missing in this code scenario, add the error code
'-EINVAL' to the return value 'rc'.

Eliminate the follow smatch warning:

drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c:2389 ef4_reset_up() warn: missing
error code 'rc'.

Reported-by: Abaci Robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c
index 5e7a57b..d336c24 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c
@@ -2385,8 +2385,10 @@ int ef4_reset_up(struct ef4_nic *efx, enum reset_type method, bool ok)
goto fail;
}

- if (!ok)
+ if (!ok) {
+ rc = -EINVAL;
goto fail;
+ }

if (efx->port_initialized && method != RESET_TYPE_INVISIBLE &&
method != RESET_TYPE_DATAPATH) {
--
1.8.3.1

2021-06-01 11:25:31

by Edward Cree

Subject: Re: [PATCH] sfc-falcon: Fix missing error code in ef4_reset_up()

On 01/06/2021 12:06, Jiapeng Chong wrote:
> The error code is missing in this code scenario, add the error code
> '-EINVAL' to the return value 'rc'.
>
> Eliminate the follow smatch warning:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c:2389 ef4_reset_up() warn: missing
> error code 'rc'.
>
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c
> index 5e7a57b..d336c24 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/efx.c
> @@ -2385,8 +2385,10 @@ int ef4_reset_up(struct ef4_nic *efx, enum reset_type method, bool ok)
> goto fail;
> }
>
> - if (!ok)
> + if (!ok) {
> + rc = -EINVAL;
> goto fail;
> + }
Not sure this is correct. Without the patch, we return with rc == 0
(set by the efx->type->init() call just above), which seems reasonable
as we successfully finished a RESET_TYPE_DISABLE.
The label name 'fail:' might be misleading; it does seem like this is
intended behaviour.
Have you tested this at all?

Note that the sfc driver (efx_common.c) does much the same thing as the
code here before your patch.

-ed

>
> if (efx->port_initialized && method != RESET_TYPE_INVISIBLE &&
> method != RESET_TYPE_DATAPATH) {
>