DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id;
        b=m5W3ffM3jGNhGu+gseHNCUcsX/Xgc72+ls8sNNpFmdlnELUJfbpdnP3ZLrzqvctUh/yKaIPMCFVxBEcbs/Rimck2UQMSFUr8ldaE+AzSVYwIh/CtVhmclCQZ5ryRhyi4BW6dq/otJqVZPtQcy9HG49pRqPWG2B1cpzWATOxtIAg=
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
To: "Peter Teoh" <htmldeveloper@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ide_register_hw(): buggy code
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:29:31 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071204.744707)
Cc: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@kernel.org>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20080302151924.GJ25835@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <804dabb00803030803v1dbbb33fh6779b8c4d072a908@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <804dabb00803030803v1dbbb33fh6779b8c4d072a908@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200803032329.32020.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1718
Lines: 58


Hi,

On Monday 03 March 2008, Peter Teoh wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > The Coverity checker spotted the following bogus change to
> >  ide_register_hw() in commit 9e016a719209d95338e314b46c3012cc7feaaeec:
> >
> >  <--  snip  -->
> >
> >  ...
> >  +               hwif = ide_deprecated_find_port(hw->io_ports[IDE_DATA_OFFSET]);
> >  +               index = hwif->index;
> >  +               if (hwif)
> >  +                       goto found;
> >                 for (index = 0; index < MAX_HWIFS; index++)
> >  ...
> >
> >  <--  snip  -->
> >
> >  It's impossible to reach the for() loop without Oopsing before.

[ iff free hwif is not found (unlikely case) ]

> >  Can you either fix this for 2.6.25 or push your patch that removes
> >  ide_register_hw() for 2.6.25?
> >
> 
> My question is:
> 
> a.   why is "retry=1", and then the do while loop always end up the
> loop being one round executed only?   Why not just remove the while
> loop entirely?

the whole ide_register_hw() is already gone in IDE tree
(these patches are scheduled for 2.6.26)

> b.   not sure if your statement above implied this, but checking for
> hwif!=0 should be before index.  ???
> 
> c.   "index = hwif->index;" should not be there, but after "found".
> Is that correct?

Yes, could you please re-do your patch to contain:

- only 'hwif->index' change
- proper patch description
- Signed-off-by: line

so I could merge it?

Thanks,
Bart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/