| Message ID | 20171102135134.5728-1-yuval.shaia@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 15:51 +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > The check makes no difference - remove it. > > Signed-off-by: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@oracle.com> > --- > librdmacm/cma.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/librdmacm/cma.c b/librdmacm/cma.c > index 7aaf45f2..6eebe71b 100644 > --- a/librdmacm/cma.c > +++ b/librdmacm/cma.c > @@ -880,8 +880,8 @@ static int rdma_resolve_addr2(struct rdma_cm_id *id, struct sockaddr *src_addr, > CMA_INIT_CMD(&cmd, sizeof cmd, RESOLVE_ADDR); > id_priv = container_of(id, struct cma_id_private, id); > cmd.id = id_priv->handle; > - if ((cmd.src_size = src_len)) > - memcpy(&cmd.src_addr, src_addr, src_len); > + cmd.src_size = src_len; > + memcpy(&cmd.src_addr, src_addr, src_len); > memcpy(&cmd.dst_addr, dst_addr, dst_len); > cmd.dst_size = dst_len; > cmd.timeout_ms = timeout_ms; Shouldn't the description have been "Passing zero as third argument to memcpy() is allowed so the if-test is not necessary. Hence leave it out"? Bart.
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:51:34PM +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > The check makes no difference - remove it. > > Signed-off-by: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@oracle.com> > --- > librdmacm/cma.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/librdmacm/cma.c b/librdmacm/cma.c > index 7aaf45f2..6eebe71b 100644 > --- a/librdmacm/cma.c > +++ b/librdmacm/cma.c > @@ -880,8 +880,8 @@ static int rdma_resolve_addr2(struct rdma_cm_id *id, struct sockaddr *src_addr, > CMA_INIT_CMD(&cmd, sizeof cmd, RESOLVE_ADDR); > id_priv = container_of(id, struct cma_id_private, id); > cmd.id = id_priv->handle; > - if ((cmd.src_size = src_len)) Isn't this "=" should be "=="? > - memcpy(&cmd.src_addr, src_addr, src_len); > + cmd.src_size = src_len; > + memcpy(&cmd.src_addr, src_addr, src_len); > memcpy(&cmd.dst_addr, dst_addr, dst_len); > cmd.dst_size = dst_len; > cmd.timeout_ms = timeout_ms; > -- > 2.13.6 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:10:27PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 15:51 +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > The check makes no difference - remove it. > > Shouldn't the description have been "Passing zero as third argument to > memcpy() is allowed so the if-test is not necessary. Hence leave it out"? +1 Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 05:12:52PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:51:34PM +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > The check makes no difference - remove it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@oracle.com> > > --- > > librdmacm/cma.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/librdmacm/cma.c b/librdmacm/cma.c > > index 7aaf45f2..6eebe71b 100644 > > --- a/librdmacm/cma.c > > +++ b/librdmacm/cma.c > > @@ -880,8 +880,8 @@ static int rdma_resolve_addr2(struct rdma_cm_id *id, struct sockaddr *src_addr, > > CMA_INIT_CMD(&cmd, sizeof cmd, RESOLVE_ADDR); > > id_priv = container_of(id, struct cma_id_private, id); > > cmd.id = id_priv->handle; > > - if ((cmd.src_size = src_len)) > > Isn't this "=" should be "=="? No chance as cmd was just initialized. > > > - memcpy(&cmd.src_addr, src_addr, src_len); > > + cmd.src_size = src_len; > > + memcpy(&cmd.src_addr, src_addr, src_len); > > memcpy(&cmd.dst_addr, dst_addr, dst_len); > > cmd.dst_size = dst_len; > > cmd.timeout_ms = timeout_ms; > > -- > > 2.13.6 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 10:45:28AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:10:27PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 15:51 +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > > The check makes no difference - remove it. > > > > Shouldn't the description have been "Passing zero as third argument to > > memcpy() is allowed so the if-test is not necessary. Hence leave it out"? > > +1 Yuval ? Thanks > > Jason > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 09:26:58AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 10:45:28AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:10:27PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 15:51 +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > > > The check makes no difference - remove it. > > > > > > Shouldn't the description have been "Passing zero as third argument to > > > memcpy() is allowed so the if-test is not necessary. Hence leave it out"? > > > > +1 > > Yuval ? Thanks Leon, Just post new pull request with the revised commit message. If still v1 is needed here for review then i'll post it. > > Thanks > > > > > Jason > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 09:26:58AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 10:45:28AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:10:27PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 15:51 +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > > > > The check makes no difference - remove it. > > > > > > > > Shouldn't the description have been "Passing zero as third argument to > > > > memcpy() is allowed so the if-test is not necessary. Hence leave it out"? > > > > > > +1 > > > > Yuval ? > > Thanks Leon, > Just post new pull request with the revised commit message. > If still v1 is needed here for review then i'll post it. Thanks, applied. > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Jason > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >
diff --git a/librdmacm/cma.c b/librdmacm/cma.c index 7aaf45f2..6eebe71b 100644 --- a/librdmacm/cma.c +++ b/librdmacm/cma.c @@ -880,8 +880,8 @@ static int rdma_resolve_addr2(struct rdma_cm_id *id, struct sockaddr *src_addr, CMA_INIT_CMD(&cmd, sizeof cmd, RESOLVE_ADDR); id_priv = container_of(id, struct cma_id_private, id); cmd.id = id_priv->handle; - if ((cmd.src_size = src_len)) - memcpy(&cmd.src_addr, src_addr, src_len); + cmd.src_size = src_len; + memcpy(&cmd.src_addr, src_addr, src_len); memcpy(&cmd.dst_addr, dst_addr, dst_len); cmd.dst_size = dst_len; cmd.timeout_ms = timeout_ms;
The check makes no difference - remove it. Signed-off-by: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@oracle.com> --- librdmacm/cma.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)