On 23/07/15 12:45, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 23.07.15 at 12:54, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/msi.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/msi.c >> @@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ int pci_restore_msi_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) >> struct msi_desc *entry, *tmp; >> struct irq_desc *desc; >> struct msi_msg msg; >> - u8 slot = PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn), func = PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn); >> + u8 slot, func; >> unsigned int type = 0, pos = 0; >> u16 control = 0; >> >> @@ -1357,6 +1357,9 @@ int pci_restore_msi_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) >> if ( !pdev ) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> + slot = PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn); >> + func = PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn); > I think this is the wrong way round - see the alternative patch just > sent. > > Btw, how did you spot this so quickly now but not during review? > Any tool helping with that?
Ah - I accidentally neglected to say that it was Coverity. It is hooked automatically into all XenServer builds, and I am being proactive keeping my upstream branch up-to-date, given the volume of code going in at the moment. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
