From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from z5.mailgun.us ([104.130.96.5]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kLU5v-00045P-Ok for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:27:44 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: sdio: remove redundant check in for loop References: <20200916165748.20927-1-alex.dewar90@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:27:36 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Julian Calaby's message of "Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:45:33 +1000") Message-ID: <87h7rnnnrb.fsf@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Julian Calaby Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, LKML , ath10k@lists.infradead.org, "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Saeed Mahameed , Alex Dewar Julian Calaby writes: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:09 AM Alex Dewar wrote: >> >> The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration, but >> we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the >> bottom of the loop body. Refactor to avoid this unnecessary check. >> >> Also, increment the variable i inline for clarity > > Comments below. > >> Addresses-Coverity: 1496984 ("Null pointer dereferences) >> Suggested-by: Saeed Mahameed >> Signed-off-by: Alex Dewar >> --- >> v2: refactor in the manner suggested by Saeed >> >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c | 12 +++--------- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c >> index 81ddaafb6721..486886c74e6a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c >> @@ -2307,8 +2307,8 @@ static int ath10k_sdio_dump_memory_section(struct ath10k *ar, >> } >> >> count = 0; >> - >> - for (i = 0; cur_section; i++) { >> + i = 0; >> + for (; cur_section; cur_section = next_section) { > > You can have multiple statements in each section of a for() if you need to, e.g. > > for (i = 1; cur_section; cur_section = next_section, i++) { > > which means that the increment of i isn't hidden deep in the function body. Yeah, I was thinking the same. But I'll apply this patch anyway, it's still an improvement. > That said, this function is a mess. Something (approximately) like > this might be more readable: > > prev_end = memregion->start; > for (i = 0; i < mem_region->section_table.size; i++) { > cur_section = &mem_region->section_table.sections[i]; > > // fail if prev_end is greater than cur_section->start - message > from line 2329 and 2294 > // check section size - from line 2315 > > skip_size = cur_section->start - prev_end; > > // check buffer size - from line 2339 - needs to account for the > skip size too. > // fill in the skip size amount - from line 2358 and 2304 > // ath10k_sdio_read_mem - from line 2346 > > prev_end = cur_section->end; > } I agree. Anyone can come up with a patch? -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k