On 02/19/2016 02:59 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/19/16 21:57, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 02/19/16 19:13, Wei Huang wrote:
>>> The condition checking on vrng->conf.period_ms appears to be wrong,
>>> conflicting with the error comment following it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <w...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c
>>> index 473c044..a06427c 100644
>>> --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c
>>> +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c
>>> @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static void virtio_rng_device_realize(DeviceState *dev,
>>> Error **errp)
>>> VirtIORNG *vrng = VIRTIO_RNG(dev);
>>> Error *local_err = NULL;
>>>
>>> - if (!vrng->conf.period_ms > 0) {
>>> + if (!(vrng->conf.period_ms > 0)) {
>>> error_setg(errp, "'period' parameter expects a positive integer");
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> The current condition is absolutely weird, but I think it happens to
>> work correctly:
>>
>> Period_ms has type uint32_t. If it is positive, then !period_ms is zero.
>> 0>0 is false, hence the error message is not printed.
>>
>> If period_ms is zero, then !period_ms is 1. 1>0 is true, hence the error
>> message is printed.
>>
>> I would rewrite the check as
>>
>> if (vrng->conf.period_ms == 0) {
>> error_setg(...)
>
> ... actually, what the heck are you looking at? :) This has been fixed
> up in:
>
Oops. It looks like I was looking at an older HEAD. :-( Please ignore
it. Sorry for the noise and thanks for pointing it out.
-Wei
> commit a3a292c420d2fec3c07a7ca56fbb064cd57a298a
> Author: Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu Dec 11 13:17:42 2014 +0530
>
> virtio-rng: fix check for period_ms validity
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
