From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: suspicious self-assignment in lpfc Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:19:21 -0500 Message-ID: <53065539.4040704@emulex.com> References: <20140218174211.GA17778@redhat.com> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cmexedge1.ext.emulex.com ([138.239.224.99]:15014 "EHLO CMEXEDGE1.ext.emulex.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754253AbaBTTTX (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:19:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140218174211.GA17778@redhat.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Jones Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org yeah - this is pretty silly. I'll cut a patch to remove the lines. -- james s On 2/18/2014 12:42 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > Looking through coverity reports, and it flagged lpfc_read_fcf_conn_tbl() > due to the following patch.. > > commit df0d085fdd2e7c39d1249c2d4ad6b3e176efb60c > Author: James Smart > Date: Fri May 31 17:05:08 2013 -0400 > > [SCSI] lpfc 8.3.40: Fixed FCoE connection list vlan identifier and add FCF list debug > > Signed-off-by: James Smart > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c > index 0f6e2548f35d..0309cc15aad6 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c > @@ -6158,12 +6158,44 @@ lpfc_read_fcf_conn_tbl(struct lpfc_hba *phba, > memcpy(&conn_entry->conn_rec, &conn_rec[i], > sizeof(struct lpfc_fcf_conn_rec)); > conn_entry->conn_rec.vlan_tag = > - le16_to_cpu(conn_entry->conn_rec.vlan_tag) & 0xFFF; > + conn_entry->conn_rec.vlan_tag; > conn_entry->conn_rec.flags = > - le16_to_cpu(conn_entry->conn_rec.flags); > + conn_entry->conn_rec.flags; > list_add_tail(&conn_entry->list, > &phba->fcf_conn_rec_list); > > > Now that we're not caring about endianness, those two assignments are redundant. > I gather this has passed testing, because surely someone would have complained by now, > but can they be removed, or should they be doing something else entirely ? > > Dave > > >