From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933425AbdERPDY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 18 May 2017 11:03:24 -0400
Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:45714 "EHLO mga06.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932536AbdERPDU (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 18 May 2017 11:03:20 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,359,1491289200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="89104326"
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:03:17 -0500
From: Chien Tin Tung <chien.tin.tung@intel.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>,
        Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@intel.com>,
        Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>, Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@gmail.com>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [infiniband-hw-i40iw] question about identical code for
 different branches
Message-ID: <20170518150317.GA10396@ctung-MOBL3.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20170517170654.Horde.cfktFjC4G4wPJvJ8X1ZyUvW@gator4166.hostgator.com>
 <20170518050029.GY3616@mtr-leonro.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170518050029.GY3616@mtr-leonro.local>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

 Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:00:29AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:06:54PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > While looking into Coverity ID 1362263 I ran into the following piece of
> > code at drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_virtchnl.c:445:
> >
> > 445        if (vchnl_msg->iw_op_code == I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER) {
> > 446                if (vchnl_msg->iw_op_ver != I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0)
> > 447                        vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
> > 448                else
> > 449                        vchnl_pf_send_get_ver_resp(dev, vf_id, vchnl_msg);
> > 450                return I40IW_SUCCESS;
> > 451        }
> >
> > The issue is that lines of code 447 and 449 are identical for different
> > branches.
> >
> > My question here is if one of the branches should be modified, or the entire
> > _if_ statement replaced?
> >
> > Maybe a patch like the following could be applied:
> 
> It looks like that you can replace I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0 with
> I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER and get rid of all places with
> I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0.

No. I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER is iw_op_code and I40IW_VCHNL_OP_GET_VER_V0 is
iw_op_ver two different things.

Chien