From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:33:36 +0300 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [patch -next] ath9k: fix ath9k_hw_nvram_check_version() In-Reply-To: <1450638355.3430.34.camel@perches.com> References: <20151219105919.GB3749@mwanda> <1450637228.3430.30.camel@perches.com> <1450638355.3430.34.camel@perches.com> Message-ID: <20151220203335.GX5284@mwanda> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:05:55AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sun, 2015-12-20 at 20:00 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Dec 2015, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2015-12-19 at 13:59 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > There is a type bug so it always returns success. > > >? > > > How many false positives do you have to sift > > > through to find this sort of error? > > > > The return type is thoughtfully bool, so it should be easy in this case.?? > > The function has a return -EINVAL and a return true, so even without the? > > return type it would be locally apparent that there is an inconsistency. > > True, -EINVAL is a non-bool constant, but > bool returns can be a variable int. > > Dan, was the check any constant non-bool? This warning is for returning negative with unsigned types smaller than int. It's doing cross function flow analysis so it could warning about other things besides constants, but it's 90% constants. It warns about ds2482_w1_triplet() for example. There aren't many false positives. regards, dan carpenter