From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49002 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q6yRj-0003JI-9d
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 01:04:56 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benh@kernel.crashing.org>) id 1Q6yRi-0000nu-HM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 01:04:55 -0400
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:48303)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benh@kernel.crashing.org>) id 1Q6yRi-0000nA-9C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 01:04:54 -0400
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110405041459.GC466@yookeroo>
References: <1301847684-8125-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
	<4D99DDD0.5070107@suse.de>  <20110405041459.GC466@yookeroo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:04:40 +1000
Message-ID: <1301979880.2549.119.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] spapr_vscsi: Set uninitialized variable
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: David Gibson <dwg@au1.ibm.com>
Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>


On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 14:14 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > >@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ static int vscsi_srp_direct_data(VSCSIState *s,
> vscsi_req *req,
> > >  {
> > >      struct srp_direct_buf *md = req->cur_desc;
> > >      uint32_t llen;
> > >-    int rc;
> > >+    int rc = 0;
> > 
> > David, is this correct? Or would rc be -1 when !llen?
> 
> I talked to Ben, who wrote this code - apparently his mail server blew
> up.  This patch should be correct, AFAWCT.  It's not totally clear
> what the right return value should be in thie case, or indeed that
> this case ever actually happens, but we think 0 is right. 

Just double checked and we never call that function if len is 0

Cheers,
Ben.