netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bnxt_en: combine 'else if' and 'else' into single branche

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAACQVJqDrVePOVrM3bOnxqUgxbcirDqhStZ3SJW2OBrNYv3d7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:15:57 +0530
From:   Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
To:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "michael.chan@...adcom.com" <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bnxt_en: combine 'else if' and 'else' into
 single branche

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Vasundhara Volam
<vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:44 PM, YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> The else-if branch and else branch set mac_ok to true similarly,
>> so combine the two into single else branch.
>>
>> Aslo add comments to explain the two conditions, which
>> from Michael Chan and Vasundhara Volam.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c | 8 ++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> index a649108..f560845 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> @@ -956,9 +956,13 @@ static int bnxt_vf_validate_set_mac(struct bnxt *bp, struct bnxt_vf_info *vf)
>>         } else if (is_valid_ether_addr(vf->vf_mac_addr)) {
>>                 if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr, vf->vf_mac_addr))
>>                         mac_ok = true;
>> -       } else if (bp->hwrm_spec_code < 0x10202) {
>> -               mac_ok = true;
>>         } else {
>> +               /* There are two cases:
>> +                * 1.If firmware spec < 0x10202,VF MAC address is not forwarded
>> +                *   to the PF and so it doesn't have to match
>> +                * 2.Allow VF to modify it's own MAC when PF has not assigned a
>> +                *   valid MAC address and firmware spec >= 0x10202
>> +                */
> No, this is not correct either. You are not covering both conditions.
> else part with cover if (!is_valid_ether_addr(vf->vf_mac_addr))
> before.
My apologies, I was thinking one more condition was required.
Patch seems fine.
>>                 mac_ok = true;
>>         }
>>         if (mac_ok)
>> --
>> 2.7.0
>>
>>