[bug report] scsi: aacraid: Reorder Adapter status check

[bug report] scsi: aacraid: Reorder Adapter status check

[Dan Carpenter]

Hello Raghava Aditya Renukunta,

The patch c421530bf848: "scsi: aacraid: Reorder Adapter status check"
from Feb 16, 2017, leads to the following static checker warning:

	drivers/scsi/aacraid/src.c:471 aac_src_check_health()
	warn: was shift intended here '(status > 16)'

drivers/scsi/aacraid/src.c
   464           */
   465          return 0;
   466  
   467  err_out:
   468          return -1;
   469  
   470  err_blink:
   471          return (status > 16) & 0xFF;
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Issue #1:  This is obviously a typo.

   472  }

Issue #2:  The caller checks for if the return is greater than 2.  It
           never is.  We can remove this dead code.

Issue #3:  The caller passes "bled" to aac_send_iop_reset() which
           ignores it.  What's up with that?  Either it's a bug or we
           should delete that dead code.

regards,
dan carpenter

RE: [bug report] scsi: aacraid: Reorder Adapter status check

[Dave Carroll]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-scsi-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Dan Carpenter
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 8:32 AM
> To: Raghava Aditya Renukunta
> Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [bug report] scsi: aacraid: Reorder Adapter status check
> 
> 
> The patch c421530bf848: "scsi: aacraid: Reorder Adapter status check"
> from Feb 16, 2017, leads to the following static checker warning:
> 
>         drivers/scsi/aacraid/src.c:471 aac_src_check_health()
>         warn: was shift intended here '(status > 16)'
> 
> drivers/scsi/aacraid/src.c
>    464           */
>    465          return 0;
>    466
>    467  err_out:
>    468          return -1;
>    469
>    470  err_blink:
>    471          return (status > 16) & 0xFF;
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Issue #1:  This is obviously a typo.

Agreed, will submit a correction ... should be >>
> 
>    472  }
> 
> Issue #2:  The caller checks for if the return is greater than 2.  It
>            never is.  We can remove this dead code.

That would be the blink led returned from the controller which would be greater than 2

> 
> Issue #3:  The caller passes "bled" to aac_send_iop_reset() which
>            ignores it.  What's up with that?  Either it's a bug or we
>            should delete that dead code.

When we have gotten all caught up, we will be printing the blink led as part of the iop_reset

Thanks, -Dave
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter