Re: [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering

[Chad Dupuis]

On Wed, 3 May 2017, 2:36pm, Randy Dunlap wrote:

> On 05/03/17 11:29, Chad Dupuis wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 3 May 2017, 1:58pm, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> Hello everybody,
> >>
> >> While looking into Coverity ID 1402011 I ran into the following piece of 
> >> code
> >> at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_io.c:2057:
> >>
> >> /* Fill FC header */
> >> fc_hdr = &(tm_req->req_fc_hdr);
> >> sid = fcport->sid;
> >> did = fcport->rdata->ids.port_id;
> >> __fc_fill_fc_hdr(fc_hdr, FC_RCTL_DD_UNSOL_CMD, sid, did,
> >>   FC_TYPE_FCP, FC_FC_FIRST_SEQ | FC_FC_END_SEQ |
> >>   FC_FC_SEQ_INIT, 0);
> >>
> >> The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to
> >> __fc_fill_fc_hdr() function do not match the ordering of the parameters:
> >>
> >> _sid_ is passed to _did_
> >> _did_ is passed to _sid_
> >>
> >> this is the function prototype:
> >>
> >> static inline void __fc_fill_fc_hdr(struct fc_frame_header *fh,
> >>enum fc_rctl r_ctl,
> >>u32 did, u32 sid, enum fc_fh_type type,
> >>u32 f_ctl, u32 parm_offset)
> >>
> >> My question here is if this is intentionala?
> > 
> > This may have been but this code has been superseded by commit  
> > be086e7c53f1fac51eed14523b28f2214b548dd2.B
> 
> what git tree is that in?
> 
> Thanks.
>

Apologies, a couple of stray characters got into the commit ID.  This is 
in mainline:

commit be086e7c53f1fac51eed14523b28f2214b548dd2
Author: Mintz, Yuval 
Date:   Sat Mar 11 18:39:18 2017 +0200

qed*: Utilize Firmware 8.15.3.0
 
> >> In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it would be 
> >> great
> >> to hear any comment about it.
> >>
> >> By the way... the same is happening at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_els.c:109
> > 
> > May be a bug here so you could send a patch.
> 
> 
> 

Re: [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering

[Randy Dunlap]

On 05/03/17 11:29, Chad Dupuis wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 May 2017, 1:58pm, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> While looking into Coverity ID 1402011 I ran into the following piece of code
>> at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_io.c:2057:
>>
>> /* Fill FC header */
>> fc_hdr = &(tm_req->req_fc_hdr);
>> sid = fcport->sid;
>> did = fcport->rdata->ids.port_id;
>> __fc_fill_fc_hdr(fc_hdr, FC_RCTL_DD_UNSOL_CMD, sid, did,
>>   FC_TYPE_FCP, FC_FC_FIRST_SEQ | FC_FC_END_SEQ |
>>   FC_FC_SEQ_INIT, 0);
>>
>> The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to
>> __fc_fill_fc_hdr() function do not match the ordering of the parameters:
>>
>> _sid_ is passed to _did_
>> _did_ is passed to _sid_
>>
>> this is the function prototype:
>>
>> static inline void __fc_fill_fc_hdr(struct fc_frame_header *fh,
>>enum fc_rctl r_ctl,
>>u32 did, u32 sid, enum fc_fh_type type,
>>u32 f_ctl, u32 parm_offset)
>>
>> My question here is if this is intentionala?
> 
> This may have been but this code has been superseded by commit
> be086e7c53f1fac51eed14523b28f2214b548dd2.B

what git tree is that in?

Thanks.

>> In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it would be great
>> to hear any comment about it.
>>
>> By the way... the same is happening at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_els.c:109
> 
> May be a bug here so you could send a patch.


-- 
~Randy

Re: [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Hi Chad,

Quoting Chad Dupuis :


On Wed, 3 May 2017, 1:58pm, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:



Hello everybody,

While looking into Coverity ID 1402011 I ran into the following  
piece of code

at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_io.c:2057:

/* Fill FC header */
fc_hdr = &(tm_req->req_fc_hdr);
sid = fcport->sid;
did = fcport->rdata->ids.port_id;
__fc_fill_fc_hdr(fc_hdr, FC_RCTL_DD_UNSOL_CMD, sid, did,
  FC_TYPE_FCP, FC_FC_FIRST_SEQ | FC_FC_END_SEQ |
  FC_FC_SEQ_INIT, 0);

The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to
__fc_fill_fc_hdr() function do not match the ordering of the parameters:

_sid_ is passed to _did_
_did_ is passed to _sid_

this is the function prototype:

static inline void __fc_fill_fc_hdr(struct fc_frame_header *fh,
   enum fc_rctl r_ctl,
   u32 did, u32 sid, enum fc_fh_type type,
   u32 f_ctl, u32 parm_offset)

My question here is if this is intentionala?


This may have been but this code has been superseded by commit
be086e7c53f1fac51eed14523b28f2214b548dd2.B




Oh OK, great.

In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it  
would be great

to hear any comment about it.

By the way... the same is happening at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_els.c:109


May be a bug here so you could send a patch.



I'll send a patch for this shortly.

Thanks for your comments.
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva

Re: [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering

[Chad Dupuis]

On Wed, 3 May 2017, 1:58pm, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

> 
> Hello everybody,
> 
> While looking into Coverity ID 1402011 I ran into the following piece of code
> at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_io.c:2057:
> 
> /* Fill FC header */
> fc_hdr = &(tm_req->req_fc_hdr);
> sid = fcport->sid;
> did = fcport->rdata->ids.port_id;
> __fc_fill_fc_hdr(fc_hdr, FC_RCTL_DD_UNSOL_CMD, sid, did,
>   FC_TYPE_FCP, FC_FC_FIRST_SEQ | FC_FC_END_SEQ |
>   FC_FC_SEQ_INIT, 0);
> 
> The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to
> __fc_fill_fc_hdr() function do not match the ordering of the parameters:
> 
> _sid_ is passed to _did_
> _did_ is passed to _sid_
> 
> this is the function prototype:
> 
> static inline void __fc_fill_fc_hdr(struct fc_frame_header *fh,
>enum fc_rctl r_ctl,
>u32 did, u32 sid, enum fc_fh_type type,
>u32 f_ctl, u32 parm_offset)
> 
> My question here is if this is intentionala?

This may have been but this code has been superseded by commit  
be086e7c53f1fac51eed14523b28f2214b548dd2.B
> 
> In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it would be great
> to hear any comment about it.
> 
> By the way... the same is happening at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_els.c:109

May be a bug here so you could send a patch.

> 
> Thank you
> --
> Gustavo A. R. Silva
> 
> 
> 
> 

[scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Hello everybody,

While looking into Coverity ID 1402011 I ran into the following piece  
of code at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_io.c:2057:


/* Fill FC header */
fc_hdr = &(tm_req->req_fc_hdr);
sid = fcport->sid;
did = fcport->rdata->ids.port_id;
__fc_fill_fc_hdr(fc_hdr, FC_RCTL_DD_UNSOL_CMD, sid, did,
   FC_TYPE_FCP, FC_FC_FIRST_SEQ | FC_FC_END_SEQ |
   FC_FC_SEQ_INIT, 0);

The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to  
__fc_fill_fc_hdr() function do not match the ordering of the parameters:


_sid_ is passed to _did_
_did_ is passed to _sid_

this is the function prototype:

static inline void __fc_fill_fc_hdr(struct fc_frame_header *fh,
enum fc_rctl r_ctl,
u32 did, u32 sid, enum fc_fh_type type,
u32 f_ctl, u32 parm_offset)

My question here is if this is intentional?

In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it would  
be great to hear any comment about it.


By the way... the same is happening at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_els.c:109

Thank you
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva