diff mbox series

[2/2] scsi: qla2xxx: don't use zero for FC4_PRIORITY_NVME

Message ID 20191107164848.31837-2-martin.wilck@suse.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Headers show
Series [1/2] scsi: qla2xxx: initialize fc4_type_priority | expand

Commit Message

Martin Wilck Nov. 7, 2019, 4:49 p.m. UTC 
From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>

Avoid an uninitialized value being falsely treated as NVMe priority.

Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>
---
 drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h    | 6 ++++--
 drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_inline.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Martin Wilck Nov. 7, 2019, 9:05 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 16:49 +0000, Martin Wilck wrote:
> From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>
> 
> Avoid an uninitialized value being falsely treated as NVMe priority.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h    | 6 ++++--
>  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_inline.h | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Tested-by: David Bond <dbond@suse.com>
Bart Van Assche Nov. 7, 2019, 9:26 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 11/7/19 8:49 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Avoid an uninitialized value being falsely treated as NVMe priority.

Although this patch looks fine to me: which uninitialized value are you 
referring to and how does this patch make a difference?

Thanks,

Bart.
Bart Van Assche Nov. 7, 2019, 9:36 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 11/7/19 1:26 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/7/19 8:49 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
>> Avoid an uninitialized value being falsely treated as NVMe priority.
> 
> Although this patch looks fine to me: which uninitialized value are you 
> referring to and how does this patch make a difference?

Does your comment refer to ha->fc4_type_priority ? You may want to 
mention this in the commit message since that variable does not occur in 
the code touched by this patch.

Thanks,

Bart.
Martin Wilck Nov. 7, 2019, 10:36 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 13:36 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/7/19 1:26 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 11/7/19 8:49 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > > Avoid an uninitialized value being falsely treated as NVMe
> > > priority.
> > 
> > Although this patch looks fine to me: which uninitialized value are
> > you 
> > referring to and how does this patch make a difference?
> 
> Does your comment refer to ha->fc4_type_priority ? You may want to 
> mention this in the commit message since that variable does not occur
> in 
> the code touched by this patch.

Right. Thanks for pointing that out.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h
index 721ee7f..86c5155 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h
+++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h
@@ -2476,8 +2476,10 @@  typedef struct fc_port {
 	u16 n2n_chip_reset;
 } fc_port_t;
 
-#define FC4_PRIORITY_NVME	0
-#define FC4_PRIORITY_FCP	1
+enum {
+	FC4_PRIORITY_NVME = 1,
+	FC4_PRIORITY_FCP  = 2,
+};
 
 #define QLA_FCPORT_SCAN		1
 #define QLA_FCPORT_FOUND	2
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_inline.h b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_inline.h
index d728b17..352aba4 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_inline.h
+++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_inline.h
@@ -317,5 +317,5 @@  qla2xxx_get_fc4_priority(struct scsi_qla_host *vha)
 	    ((uint8_t *)vha->hw->nvram)[NVRAM_DUAL_FCP_NVME_FLAG_OFFSET];
 
 
-	return ((data >> 6) & BIT_0);
+	return (data >> 6) & BIT_0 ? FC4_PRIORITY_FCP : FC4_PRIORITY_NVME;
 }