Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe: Fix DEADCODE Coverity issue

["Ranbir Singh" <rsingh@ventanamicro.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2635 bytes --]

I considered the least code change approach without considering any
optimization which also works as such.

However, yes, the duplicated /unnecessary subsequent checks can be removed.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:51 PM Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/7/23 07:19, Ranbir Singh wrote:
> > From: Ranbir Singh <Ranbir.Singh3@Dell.com>
> >
> > The function PciHotPlugRequestNotify has two if blocks towards the end
> > of function both containing return. Due to the parameter checks ensured
> > at the beginning of the function, one of the two if blocks is bound to
> > come in execution flow. Hence, the return EFI_SUCCESS; at line 2112 is
> > redundant/deadcode.
>
> Agree with the analysis.
>
> >
> > To fix it, either of line 2109 or 2112 can be deleted.
> >
> > REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4239
> >
> > Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
> > Co-authored-by: Veeresh Sangolli <veeresh.sangolli@dellteam.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ranbir Singh <Ranbir.Singh3@Dell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ranbir Singh <rsingh@ventanamicro.com>
> > ---
> >  MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciEnumerator.c | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciEnumerator.c
> b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciEnumerator.c
> > index 3f8c6e6da7dc..5b71e152f3ea 100644
> > --- a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciEnumerator.c
> > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciEnumerator.c
> > @@ -2106,7 +2106,6 @@ PciHotPlugRequestNotify (
> >      //
> >      // End for
> >      //
> > -    return EFI_SUCCESS;
> >    }
> >
> >    return EFI_SUCCESS;
>
> Disagree with the fix.
>
> Given the checks on "Operation" at the top of the function, the
> condition (near the end of the function)
>
>   if (Operation == EfiPciHotplugRequestRemove) {
>
> will always evaluate to TRUE. (Operation can be only Add or Remove, and
> if it is Add, then we don't reach this location.)
>
> Therefore, we should remove this condition, and *unnest* the dependent
> logic.
>
> As a result of *that*, you'll have
>
>   return EFI_SUCCESS;
>   return EFI_SUCCESS;
>
> at the end of the function, and *then* you should remove either one of
> them.
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
>


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#111018): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111018
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102438298/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3917 bytes --]