linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] 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]

Message-ID: <281475cc-a159-8e25-f5e7-cde343bc50c4@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 12:25:04 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     Yang Li <yang.lee@...ux.alibaba.com>, jejb@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     martin.petersen@...cle.com, jinpu.wang@...ud.ionos.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] scsi: pm8001: clean up some inconsistent indenting

On 2/6/22 21:55, 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>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c
> index 41a63c9b719b..213ebf39261f 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_ctl.c
> @@ -755,36 +755,41 @@ 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
> +			 */

Please start multi-line comments with a line that has only "/*". It
would be good to add a blnak line before that too, for readability.

> +			if (((loopcount-loopNumber) == 1) &&
> +				((partitionSize + HEADER_LEN) % IOCTL_BUF_SIZE)) {

While at it, align the conditions together to make this code more
readable. As is, it is really unpleasant to read :)

Also, "(partitionSize + HEADER_LEN) % IOCTL_BUF_SIZE" is calculated way
too many times. Using a local variable for the value would be nice.

> +				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;
> +			}
>  		}
>  	}
>  out:


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research