netdev - RE: [net 2/8] igb: fix vf lookup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:55:10 +0000
From:	"Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
	"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [net 2/8] igb: fix vf lookup

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:53 PM
> To: joe@...ches.com
> Cc: Rose, Gregory V; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> gospo@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com; stable@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [net 2/8] igb: fix vf lookup
> 
> From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:49:40 -0800
> 
> > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 23:42 +0000, Rose, Gregory V wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> > []
> >> > @@ -5012,7 +5012,8 @@ static int igb_find_enabled_vfs(struct
> igb_adapter
> >> > *adapter)
> >> >  	vf_devfn = pdev->devfn + 0x80;
> >> >  	pvfdev = pci_get_device(hw->vendor_id, device_id, NULL);
> >> >  	while (pvfdev) {
> >> > -		if (pvfdev->devfn == vf_devfn)
> >> > +		if (pvfdev->devfn == vf_devfn &&
> >> > +		    (pvfdev->bus->number >= pdev->bus->number))
> >> >  			vfs_found++;
> > []
> >> I'll fix this one too.  You start leaning on checkpatch and you get
> lazy I guess.
> >
> > I suppose an indentation rule could be created when
> > arguments on multiple lines don't align at the open
> > parenthesis, but I'm not going to rewrite emacs
> > indentation rules.
> >
> > Presumably it should only be used with --strict.
> >
> > Anyone think multiple line tests with inequivalent uses
> > of parentheses like this one should be noted as well?
> 
> Actually I thought this case was perfectly fine.

The imbalanced parenthesis usage bothers me.  And yes, if you're going to have a tool that checks patch formatting it'd be nice if it caught things like this.  But then I'm the lazy fool here...

- Greg

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html