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

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

Message-ID: <9DD61F30A802C4429A01CA4200E302A730338947@fmsmsx116.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2017 14:35:33 +0000
From:   "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>,
        "Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>
CC:     "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [infiniband-hw-i40iw] question about identical code for
 different branches


> 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.

Shiraz