Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761477AbYCDVUN (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:20:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759118AbYCDVTr (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:19:47 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:19295 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757007AbYCDVTn (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:19:43 -0500 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=TyqFzuEaBQsbTvhQx+0nMk6jyqCxJ9PWjp+5iRPHKJAS3bH3T8Cwe0SWh3sbtXkOOVw8eGem4mkY5WDoTZJB6vC8SCKvUz6saiNOeVq15UQyYljqF1dxvaK9XlPhih2GLOLYCy16IKwjvwOnQOtSlbDQRvm1/1v69hmpTyKxng4= From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: "Peter Teoh" Subject: Re: ide_register_hw(): buggy code Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:57:22 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071204.744707) Cc: "Adrian Bunk" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20080302151924.GJ25835@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <200803032329.32020.bzolnier@gmail.com> <804dabb00803031701g368a7082q248cc2b05e762fa1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <804dabb00803031701g368a7082q248cc2b05e762fa1@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803042157.23592.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2183 Lines: 68 On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Peter Teoh wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Monday 03 March 2008, Peter Teoh wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Adrian Bunk 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? > > > Description: > > Relocating the index to come after finding the hwif pointer. applied, thanks -- 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/