On 03/14/2016 04:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2016 16:19:58 Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> vports = lpfc_create_vport_work_array(phba);
>>> - if (vports != NULL)
>>> + if (vports != NULL) {
>>> for (i = 0; i <= phba->max_vports && vports[i] != NULL; i++) {
>>> struct Scsi_Host *shost;
>>> shost = lpfc_shost_from_vport(vports[i]);
>>> @@ -2877,7 +2877,8 @@ lpfc_online(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
>>> }
>>> spin_unlock_irq(shost->host_lock);
>>> }
>>> - lpfc_destroy_vport_work_array(phba, vports);
>>> + }
>>> + lpfc_destroy_vport_work_array(phba, vports);
>>>
>>> lpfc_unblock_mgmt_io(phba);
>>> return 0;
>>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> vports is only valid from within the indentation block, so it should
>> be moved into it.
>>
>>
>
> Well, every other user of the function also looks like
>
> vports = lpfc_create_vport_work_array(phba);
> if (vports != NULL) {
> do_something(vports);
> }
> lpfc_destroy_vport_work_array(phba, vports);
>
> and lpfc_destroy_vport_work_array() does nothing if its argument is NULL.
>
> I still think my patch is the correct fix for the warning.
>
Okay, good point.
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.com>
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
h...@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
