Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755879AbdLORwu (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:52:50 -0500 Received: from mx02-sz.bfs.de ([194.94.69.103]:1920 "EHLO mx02-sz.bfs.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755663AbdLORws (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:52:48 -0500 Message-ID: <5A340BEC.6040704@bfs.de> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:52:44 +0100 From: walter harms Reply-To: wharms@bfs.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125 SUSE/3.0.11 Thunderbird/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Colin King CC: "James E . J . Bottomley" , "Martin K . Petersen" , Ching Huang , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] scsi: arcmsr: remove redundant check for secs < 0 References: <20171209003414.17332-1-colin.king@canonical.com> In-Reply-To: <20171209003414.17332-1-colin.king@canonical.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1345 Lines: 44 Am 09.12.2017 01:34, schrieb Colin King: > From: Colin Ian King > > The check for secs being less than zero is redundant for two reasons. > Firstly, secs is unsigned so the check is always going to be false. > Secondly, if secs was signed the proceeding calculation of secs is > never going to be negative. Hence we can remove this redundant check > and day and secs re-adjustment. > > Detected by static analysis with smatch: > arcmsr_set_iop_datetime() warn: unsigned 'secs' is never less than zero. > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King > --- > drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr_hba.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr_hba.c b/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr_hba.c > index 0707a60bf5c0..e4258b69f4be 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr_hba.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr_hba.c > @@ -3679,10 +3679,6 @@ static void arcmsr_set_iop_datetime(struct timer_list *t) > secs = (u32)(tv.tv_sec - (sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60)); > days = secs / 86400; > secs = secs - 86400 * days; mmh, what they want to do is: secs = secs % 86400 ; > - if (secs < 0) { > - days = days - 1; > - secs = secs + 86400; > - } > j = days / 146097; > i = days - 146097 * j; > a = i + 719468; see above. btw: are the numbers documented ? re, wh