linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ib_srpt: wait_for_completion_timeout does not return negativ status

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20150116120203.GA26292@opentech.at>
Date:	Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:02:03 +0100
From:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To:	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ib_srpt: wait_for_completion_timeout does not return
	negativ status

On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Bart Van Assche wrote:

> On 01/16/15 12:20, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
> > ---
> > 
> > Patch is against 3.19.0-rc3 -next-20150109
> > 
> > Patch was compiletested only with x86_64_defconfig +
> > CONFIG_TARGET_CORE=m, CONFIG_INFINIBAND=m, CONFIG_INFINIBAND_SRPT=m
> > 
> >  drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
> > index eb694dd..4e58c76 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
> > @@ -3533,7 +3533,7 @@ static void srpt_close_session(struct se_session *se_sess)
> >  	spin_unlock_irq(&sdev->spinlock);
> >  
> >  	res = wait_for_completion_timeout(&release_done, 60 * HZ);
> > -	WARN_ON(res <= 0);
> > +	WARN_ON(res == 0);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> 
> The description of this patch explains why you would like to change this
> code but not why this change is useful. Does building the current code
> e.g. trigger a compiler warning ? If so, which warning ? If not, why
> would you like to change this code and why do you think this change is
> an improvement ?
>
the code will not fail in its urrent form but it will trigger 
static code chekcers (actually this was found by a static code checker)

so its a QA issue  not a bug fix in any way.

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