From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/7] Add pci_dev_for_each_resource() helper and update users Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 16:30:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1685568630; bh=gW9waI0b8IiYUwk0vfOCM7pXk2nDw1QSAznIy/h3ghs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=KtBbCN/ixHzj8ZulEY/5zCSpe/VVKBpSZFDZuNCSDCoNNZ4IeoA+28lWLQWvSlii6 83BDJpZxFh6HJCKpfPSOLONuS2M6Vumh+ceOlzxWjyrmYHupNvr4DztdjDLJl3iqmN E3araGx+1PyOqST2zluz35yOcgzUDjix8glDLTAN/wUxtojSsJeinZtS0BNCLJVOXb hkXJLKswE11TqxiL8vaPqm931ggJJ71GILWlC61yGzVhgB56FeGO9+L1ZryEUY7qlP EPZxdEvOEEyvpu7VdWJnY4Z4bFlhgqbJcQ6tWlmZqEjiu2TPM90LCU6E74dCFHn04m J5aGwHVGTvHag== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jonas Gorski Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= , Rich Felker , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Dominik Brodowski , Andrew Lunn , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Stefano Stabellini , Yoshinori Sato , Gregory Clement , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Russell King , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Matt Turner , Anatolij Gustschin , Sebast On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:48:35PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote: > ... > Looking at the code I understand where coverity is coming from: > > #define __pci_dev_for_each_res0(dev, res, ...) \ > for (unsigned int __b = 0; \ > res = pci_resource_n(dev, __b), __b < PCI_NUM_RESOURCES; \ > __b++) > > res will be assigned before __b is checked for being less than > PCI_NUM_RESOURCES, making it point to behind the array at the end of > the last loop iteration. > > Rewriting the test expression as > > __b < PCI_NUM_RESOURCES && (res = pci_resource_n(dev, __b)); > > should avoid the (coverity) warning by making use of lazy evaluation. > > It probably makes the code slightly less performant as res will now be > checked for being not NULL (which will always be true), but I doubt it > will be significant (or in any hot paths). Thanks a lot for looking into this! I think you're right, and I think the rewritten expression is more logical as well. Do you want to post a patch for it? Bjorn