Re: [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Hi Chad,

Quoting Chad Dupuis <chad.dupuis@xxxxxxxxxx>:

> 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 This may have been but this code has been superseded by commit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