Re: [PATCH] qla4xx: a small loop fix

[Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>]

On 11/01/2011 03:22 PM, Tomas Henzl wrote:
> On 11/01/2011 07:10 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
>> On 11/01/2011 11:46 AM, Tomas Henzl wrote:
>>> From: Tomas Henzl <thenzl@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> When the qla4xxx_get_fwddb_entry returns QLA_ERROR
>>> the nex_idx is not updated, 
>>>       for (idx = 0; idx < max_ddbs; idx = next_idx) {
>>>                 ret = qla4xxx_get_fwddb_entry(ha, idx, NULL, 0, NULL,
>>>                                               &next_idx, &state, &conn_err,
>>>                                                 NULL, NULL);
>>>                 if (ret == QLA_ERROR)
>>>                         continue;
>>>  
>>> This means there is a risk that the 'idx < max_ddbs' condition will never
>>> met and the loop will loop forever.
>>> Fix this by explicitly increasing the next_idx in the error condition.
>>>
>>> Maybe a break instead of continue is more appropriate, leaving the decision
>>> on the qlogic maintainer.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomas Henzl <thenzl@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_init.c b/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_init.c
>>> index 3075fba..17acb17 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_init.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_init.c
>>> @@ -787,8 +787,10 @@ static void qla4xxx_free_ddb_index(struct scsi_qla_host *ha)
>>>  		ret = qla4xxx_get_fwddb_entry(ha, idx, NULL, 0, NULL,
>>>  					      &next_idx, &state, &conn_err,
>>>  						NULL, NULL);
>>> -		if (ret == QLA_ERROR)
>>> +		if (ret == QLA_ERROR) {
>>> +			next_idx++;
>>>  			continue;
>>> +		}
>>>  		if (state == DDB_DS_NO_CONNECTION_ACTIVE ||
>>>  		    state == DDB_DS_SESSION_FAILED) {
>>>  			DEBUG2(ql4_printk(KERN_INFO, ha,
>> Patch looks correct.
>>
>> James, this is a patch for something that is not yet upstream. I will
>> just merge this patch with the patch I was going to send upstream, so do
>> not worry about it.
> It's created on top of scsi-misc (99a700bcc75429ba84a672d04f0b650dcc5b3042 [SCSI] mv_sas: OCZ RevoDrive3 & zDrive R4 support)
> it looks like being created on top of the not yet posted patch, but it isn't so :)
> To the method how this gets accepted i don't care.
>

Ah yeah, you are right. Go ahead and take it.

Reviewed-by: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>