linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v2] scsi: pm8001: clean up some inconsistent indenting

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 20:50:39 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     Yang Li <yang.lee@...ux.alibaba.com>, jejb@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     jinpu.wang@...ud.ionos.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2] scsi: pm8001: clean up some inconsistent
 indenting

On 2/7/22 17:15, Yang Li wrote:
> Eliminate the follow smatch warning:
> drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c:760 pm8001_update_flash() warn:
> inconsistent indenting
> 
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.lee@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> 
>   Changes in v2:
> --According to Damien's suggestion
>   1) Start multi-line comments with a line that has only "/*".
>   2) Align the conditions together to make this code more readable.
>   3) Using a local variable for value which is calculated too many times.
> 
>  drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c
> index 41a63c9b719b..0d9533ba8d27 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c
> @@ -727,6 +727,8 @@ static int pm8001_update_flash(struct pm8001_hba_info *pm8001_ha)
>  	u32		sizeRead = 0;
>  	u32		ret = 0;
>  	u32		length = 1024 * 16 + sizeof(*payload) - 1;
> +	u32		fc_len = 0;

I think that the "= 0" is not needed.

> +	u8		*read_buf;
>  
>  	if (pm8001_ha->fw_image->size < 28) {
>  		pm8001_ha->fw_status = FAIL_FILE_SIZE;
> @@ -755,36 +757,35 @@ static int pm8001_update_flash(struct pm8001_hba_info *pm8001_ha)
>  			fwControl->retcode = 0;/* OUT */
>  			fwControl->offset = loopNumber * IOCTL_BUF_SIZE;/*OUT */
>  
> -		/* for the last chunk of data in case file size is not even with
> -		4k, load only the rest*/
> -		if (((loopcount-loopNumber) == 1) &&
> -			((partitionSize + HEADER_LEN) % IOCTL_BUF_SIZE)) {
> -			fwControl->len =
> -				(partitionSize + HEADER_LEN) % IOCTL_BUF_SIZE;
> -			memcpy((u8 *)fwControl->buffer,
> -				(u8 *)pm8001_ha->fw_image->data + sizeRead,
> -				(partitionSize + HEADER_LEN) % IOCTL_BUF_SIZE);
> -			sizeRead +=
> -				(partitionSize + HEADER_LEN) % IOCTL_BUF_SIZE;
> -		} else {
> -			memcpy((u8 *)fwControl->buffer,
> -				(u8 *)pm8001_ha->fw_image->data + sizeRead,
> -				IOCTL_BUF_SIZE);
> -			sizeRead += IOCTL_BUF_SIZE;
> -		}
> -
> -		pm8001_ha->nvmd_completion = &completion;
> -		ret = PM8001_CHIP_DISP->fw_flash_update_req(pm8001_ha, payload);
> -		if (ret) {
> -			pm8001_ha->fw_status = FAIL_OUT_MEMORY;
> -			goto out;
> -		}
> -		wait_for_completion(&completion);
> -		if (fwControl->retcode > FLASH_UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS) {
> -			pm8001_ha->fw_status = fwControl->retcode;
> -			ret = -EFAULT;
> -			goto out;
> -		}
> +			/*
> +			 * for the last chunk of data in case file size is
> +			 * not even with 4k, load only the rest
> +			 */
> +
> +			fc_len = (partitionSize + HEADER_LEN) % IOCTL_BUF_SIZE;

I would move this line down, right above the "if" where the variable is
used.

> +			read_buf  = (u8 *)pm8001_ha->fw_image->data + sizeRead;
> +
> +			if (((loopcount-loopNumber) == 1) && fc_len) {

While at it, please add spaces around the "-" and remove the unnecessary
parenthesis:

	if (loopcount - loopNumber == 1 && fc_len) {

> +				fwControl->len = fc_len;
> +				memcpy((u8 *)fwControl->buffer, read_buf, fc_len);
> +				sizeRead += fc_len;
> +			} else {
> +				memcpy((u8 *)fwControl->buffer, read_buf, IOCTL_BUF_SIZE);
> +				sizeRead += IOCTL_BUF_SIZE;
> +			}
> +
> +			pm8001_ha->nvmd_completion = &completion;
> +			ret = PM8001_CHIP_DISP->fw_flash_update_req(pm8001_ha, payload);
> +			if (ret) {
> +				pm8001_ha->fw_status = FAIL_OUT_MEMORY;
> +				goto out;
> +			}
> +			wait_for_completion(&completion);
> +			if (fwControl->retcode > FLASH_UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS) {
> +				pm8001_ha->fw_status = fwControl->retcode;
> +				ret = -EFAULT;
> +				goto out;
> +			}
>  		}
>  	}
>  out:

With that fixed, looks good.

Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research