linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: sli4: Remove code duplication

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: <38158855-5738-16a9-2237-34980917566b@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 16 Aug 2023 12:35:52 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     coolrrsh@...il.com, james.smart@...adcom.com,
        ram.vegesna@...adcom.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        target-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: sli4: Remove code duplication

Hi--

On 8/16/23 01:50, coolrrsh@...il.com wrote:
> From: Rajeshwar R Shinde <coolrrsh@...il.com>
> 
> In the function sli_xmit_bls_rsp64_wqe, the 'if' and 'else' conditions 
> evaluates the same expression and gives same output. So removing the redundant 
> code duplication to optimise the code.
> 
> This fixes warning such as:
> drivers/scsi/elx/libefc_sli/sli4.c:2320:2-4: WARNING: possible condition with no effect (if == else)

What tool produces this message?

> Signed-off-by: Rajeshwar R Shinde <coolrrsh@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/elx/libefc_sli/sli4.c | 8 ++------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/elx/libefc_sli/sli4.c b/drivers/scsi/elx/libefc_sli/sli4.c
> index 8f96049f62dd..5e7fb110bc3f 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/elx/libefc_sli/sli4.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/elx/libefc_sli/sli4.c
> @@ -2317,12 +2317,8 @@ sli_xmit_bls_rsp64_wqe(struct sli4 *sli, void *buf,
>  		SLI4_GENERIC_CONTEXT_VPI << SLI4_BLS_RSP_WQE_CT_SHFT;
>  		bls->context_tag = cpu_to_le16(params->vpi);
>  
> -		if (params->s_id != U32_MAX)
> -			bls->local_n_port_id_dword |=
> -				cpu_to_le32(params->s_id & 0x00ffffff);
> -		else
> -			bls->local_n_port_id_dword |=
> -				cpu_to_le32(params->s_id & 0x00ffffff);
> +		bls->local_n_port_id_dword |=
> +			cpu_to_le32(params->s_id & 0x00ffffff);

That could be correct. Or there could be a bug there.
Who knows? I don't.

But maybe it doesn't matter since AFAICT that field isn't used
anywhere after it is set.

>  
>  		dw_ridflags = (dw_ridflags & ~SLI4_BLS_RSP_RID) |
>  			       (params->d_id & SLI4_BLS_RSP_RID);

-- 
~Randy