linux-kernel - Re: [infiniband-hw-i40iw] question about identical code for different branches

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: <20170518125413.Horde.xnD_6K5mFzkhQLdyz7R3LXt@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2017 12:54:13 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>
Cc:     "Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [infiniband-hw-i40iw] question about identical code for
 different branches


Quoting "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>:

>> Subject: [infiniband-hw-i40iw] question about identical code for  
>> different branches
>>
>>
>> index f4d1368..48fd327 100644
>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_virtchnl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_virtchnl.c
>> @@ -443,10 +443,7 @@ enum i40iw_status_code i40iw_vchnl_recv_pf(struct
>> i40iw_sc_dev *dev,
>>          if (!dev->vchnl_up)
>>                  return I40IW_ERR_NOT_READY;
>>          if (vchnl_msg->iw_op_code == I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER) {
>> -               if (vchnl_msg->iw_op_ver != I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0)
>> -                       vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
>> -               else
>> -                       vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
>> +               vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
>>                  return I40IW_SUCCESS;
>>          }
>>          for (iw_vf_idx = 0; iw_vf_idx < I40IW_MAX_PE_ENABLED_VF_COUNT;
>> iw_vf_idx++) {
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> I'd really appreciate any comment on this.
>>
> Yes. This fix is fine.
>

I'll send a patch in a full and proper format shortly.

Thank you all for your comments.
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva