Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220823182758.13401-1-khalid.masum.92@gmail.com>
 <20220823182758.13401-3-khalid.masum.92@gmail.com> <YwW9dBW/0TKHPnC1@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <YwW9dBW/0TKHPnC1@kroah.com>
From:   Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:22:08 +0600
Message-ID: <CAABMjtHg3Fe3QQgdDd4p=b25JWHKVFtibczLhk1hG0idMyrJhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] usb: ehci: Prevent possible modulo by zero
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:56 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>

> Odd tag format, is that in the documentation?

You are right. I should have used "Addresses-coverity".

> You only ever use likely/unlikely if you can document how it matters
> with a benchmark or other way to notice the difference.  Otherwise let
> the compiler and the CPU do their magic, they know how to do this better
> than us.

Thanks for the important information.
>
> > +             return -1;

I noticed. The function returns -1 on failure, everywhere so I used that.
I guess making them return correct error numbers using macros would
be a patch.
>
> A real error number should be returned here if this was valid.
>
> But as Alan said, coverity is often wrong, and unless you can prove
> otherwise, this patch isn't valid.

Got you.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

  -- Khalid Masum