[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61213e24-db1d-8a56-e1a9-e68ae689b73f@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:14:49 +0000
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To: Solarflare linux maintainers <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: re: sfc: process RX event inner checksum flags
Hi there,
not sure if this is a bug, or intentional, but CoverityScan picked up a
mismatch in arguments when calling efx_ef10_handle_rx_event_error() with
commit "sfc: process RX event inner checksum flags" that landed in
linux-next:
CID 1402067 (#1 of 1): Arguments in wrong order
(SWAPPED_ARGUMENTS)swapped_arguments: The positions of arguments in the
call to efx_ef10_handle_rx_event_errors do not match the ordering of the
parameters:
rx_l3_class is passed to rx_encap_hdr
rx_l4_class is passed to rx_l3_class
rx_encap_hdr is passed to rx_l4_class
The function in question has the prototype:
static u16 efx_ef10_handle_rx_event_errors(struct efx_channel *channel,
unsigned int n_packets,
unsigned int rx_encap_hdr,
unsigned int rx_l3_class,
unsigned int rx_l4_class,
const efx_qword_t *event)
...where as it it being called using:
flags |= efx_ef10_handle_rx_event_errors(channel, n_packets,
rx_l3_class, rx_l4_class, rx_encap_hdr, event);
Is this a bug or intentional?
Colin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists