[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87eef8a06064dc895f183ba2a1cd649c213f3e37.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:24:33 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Denis Plotnikov <den-plotnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com,
sony.chacko@...gic.com, GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com,
helgaas@...nel.org, simon.horman@...igine.com, manishc@...vell.com,
shshaikh@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] qlcnic: check pci_reset_function result
On Fri, 2023-04-07 at 10:18 +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> Static code analyzer complains to unchecked return value.
> The result of pci_reset_function() is unchecked.
> Despite, the issue is on the FLR supported code path and in that
> case reset can be done with pcie_flr(), the patch uses less invasive
> approach by adding the result check of pci_reset_function().
>
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>
> Fixes: 7e2cf4feba05 ("qlcnic: change driver hardware interface mechanism")
> Signed-off-by: Denis Plotnikov <den-plotnikov@...dex-team.ru>
Any special reason to target the net-next tree? This looks like a -net
candidate to me?
Thanks!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists