* re: [SCSI] lpfc 8.2.7 : Rework the worker thread
@ 2015-05-15 9:49 Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2015-05-15 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James.Smart; +Cc: linux-scsi
Hello James Smart,
The patch 5e9d9b827698: "[SCSI] lpfc 8.2.7 : Rework the worker
thread" from Jun 14, 2008, leads to the following static checker
warning:
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c:9365 lpfc_sli_host_down()
warn: test_bit() takes a bit number
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
9357 spin_lock_irqsave(&phba->hbalock, flags);
9358 for (i = 0; i < psli->num_rings; i++) {
9359 pring = &psli->ring[i];
9360 prev_pring_flag = pring->flag;
9361 /* Only slow rings */
9362 if (pring->ringno == LPFC_ELS_RING) {
9363 pring->flag |= LPFC_DEFERRED_RING_EVENT;
9364 /* Set the lpfc data pending flag */
9365 set_bit(LPFC_DATA_READY, &phba->data_flags);
LPFC_DATA_READY is defined as:
#define LPFC_DATA_READY (1<<0)
The intention seems to be that we use BIT(0) but because set_bit() has
a shift built in it is using BIT(1). In other words:
Good: set_bit(0, &phba->data_flags);
Bad: set_bit(BIT(0), &phba->data_flags);
This seems to be used consistently so I think it's fine, but static
checkers will complain. I think this is the only ->data_flag that we
use so it doesn't matter (I haven't looked very hard at this code).
9366 }
9367 /*
9368 * Error everything on the txq since these iocbs have not been
9369 * given to the FW yet.
9370 */
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2015-05-15 9:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-05-15 9:49 [SCSI] lpfc 8.2.7 : Rework the worker thread Dan Carpenter
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.