Re: ide_register_hw(): buggy code

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Peter Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
> <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi,
> >
> >
> >  On Monday 03 March 2008, Peter Teoh wrote:
> >  > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >  > > The Coverity checker spotted the following bogus change to
> >  > >  ide_register_hw() in commit 9e016a719209d95338e314b46c3012cc7feaaeec:
> >  > >
> >  > >  <--  snip  -->
> >  > >
> >  > >  ...
> >  > >  +               hwif = ide_deprecated_find_port(hw->io_ports[IDE_DATA_OFFSET]);
> >  > >  +               index = hwif->index;
> >  > >  +               if (hwif)
> >  > >  +                       goto found;
> >  > >                 for (index = 0; index < MAX_HWIFS; index++)
> >  > >  ...
> >  > >
> >  > >  <--  snip  -->
> >  > >
> >  > >  It's impossible to reach the for() loop without Oopsing before.
> >
> >  [ iff free hwif is not found (unlikely case) ]
> >
> >
> >  > >  Can you either fix this for 2.6.25 or push your patch that removes
> >  > >  ide_register_hw() for 2.6.25?
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > My question is:
> >  >
> >  > a.   why is "retry=1", and then the do while loop always end up the
> >  > loop being one round executed only?   Why not just remove the while
> >  > loop entirely?
> >
> >  the whole ide_register_hw() is already gone in IDE tree
> >  (these patches are scheduled for 2.6.26)
> >
> >
> >  > b.   not sure if your statement above implied this, but checking for
> >  > hwif!=0 should be before index.  ???
> >  >
> >  > c.   "index = hwif->index;" should not be there, but after "found".
> >  > Is that correct?
> >
> >  Yes, could you please re-do your patch to contain:
> >
> >  - only 'hwif->index' change
> >  - proper patch description
> >  - Signed-off-by: line
> >
> >  so I could merge it?
> 
> 
> Description:
> 
> Relocating the index to come after finding the hwif pointer.

applied, thanks