From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> Cc: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com>, linux-wimax@intel.com, "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] wimax/i2400m: fix calculation of index, remove sizeof Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:27:00 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <300939a6-33b6-a941-1875-0f7fe610d441@canonical.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190823112337.GB23408@kadam> On 23/08/2019 12:23, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 09:52:30AM +0100, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >> >> The subtraction of the two pointers is automatically scaled by the >> size of the size of the object the pointers point to, so the division >> by sizeof(*i2400m->barker) is incorrect. Fix this by removing the >> division. Also make index an unsigned int to clean up a checkpatch >> warning. >> >> Addresses-Coverity: ("Extra sizeof expression") >> Fixes: aba3792ac2d7 ("wimax/i2400m: rework bootrom initialization to be more flexible") >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c >> index 489cba9b284d..599a703af6eb 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c >> @@ -399,8 +399,7 @@ int i2400m_is_boot_barker(struct i2400m *i2400m, >> * associated with the device. */ >> if (i2400m->barker >> && !memcmp(buf, i2400m->barker, sizeof(i2400m->barker->data))) { >> - unsigned index = (i2400m->barker - i2400m_barker_db) >> - / sizeof(*i2400m->barker); >> + unsigned int index = i2400m->barker - i2400m_barker_db; >> d_printf(2, dev, "boot barker cache-confirmed #%u/%08x\n", >> index, le32_to_cpu(i2400m->barker->data[0])); > > It's only used for this debug output. You may as well just delete it. > >> return 0; Deleting wrong debug code vs fixing debug code? I'd rather go for the latter. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> Cc: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com>, linux-wimax@intel.com, "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] wimax/i2400m: fix calculation of index, remove sizeof Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:27:00 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <300939a6-33b6-a941-1875-0f7fe610d441@canonical.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190823112337.GB23408@kadam> On 23/08/2019 12:23, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 09:52:30AM +0100, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >> >> The subtraction of the two pointers is automatically scaled by the >> size of the size of the object the pointers point to, so the division >> by sizeof(*i2400m->barker) is incorrect. Fix this by removing the >> division. Also make index an unsigned int to clean up a checkpatch >> warning. >> >> Addresses-Coverity: ("Extra sizeof expression") >> Fixes: aba3792ac2d7 ("wimax/i2400m: rework bootrom initialization to be more flexible") >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c >> index 489cba9b284d..599a703af6eb 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c >> @@ -399,8 +399,7 @@ int i2400m_is_boot_barker(struct i2400m *i2400m, >> * associated with the device. */ >> if (i2400m->barker >> && !memcmp(buf, i2400m->barker, sizeof(i2400m->barker->data))) { >> - unsigned index = (i2400m->barker - i2400m_barker_db) >> - / sizeof(*i2400m->barker); >> + unsigned int index = i2400m->barker - i2400m_barker_db; >> d_printf(2, dev, "boot barker cache-confirmed #%u/%08x\n", >> index, le32_to_cpu(i2400m->barker->data[0])); > > It's only used for this debug output. You may as well just delete it. > >> return 0; Deleting wrong debug code vs fixing debug code? I'd rather go for the latter. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-23 11:27 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-08-23 8:52 [PATCH] wimax/i2400m: fix calculation of index, remove sizeof Colin King 2019-08-23 8:52 ` Colin King 2019-08-23 11:23 ` Dan Carpenter 2019-08-23 11:23 ` Dan Carpenter 2019-08-23 11:27 ` Colin Ian King [this message] 2019-08-23 11:27 ` Colin Ian King 2019-08-23 21:30 ` David Miller 2019-08-23 21:30 ` David Miller
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=300939a6-33b6-a941-1875-0f7fe610d441@canonical.com \ --to=colin.king@canonical.com \ --cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \ --cc=davem@davemloft.net \ --cc=inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com \ --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-wimax@intel.com \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.