From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail27.static.mailgun.info ([104.130.122.27]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jNyyq-000374-Q1 for ath11k@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:18:30 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:48:25 +0530 From: Sriram R Subject: Re: [bug report] ath11k: handle RX fragments In-Reply-To: References: <20200407134115.GA108129@mwanda> Message-ID: <304723517988acc2b595b0b4131546c5@codeaurora.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "ath11k" Errors-To: ath11k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: dan.carpenter@oracle.com, mpubbise@codeaurora.org Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath11k@lists.infradead.org Hi Dan, > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org > On Behalf Of Dan Carpenter > Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 7:11 PM > To: mpubbise@codeaurora.org > Cc: ath11k@lists.infradead.org; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org > Subject: [EXT] [bug report] ath11k: handle RX fragments > > Hello Manikanta Pubbisetty, > > The patch 243874c64c81: "ath11k: handle RX fragments" from Mar 16, > 2020, leads to the following static checker warning: > > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp_rx.c:3365 ath11k_dp_rx_frag_h_mpdu() > warn: missing error code here? 'ath11k_dp_rx_h_defrag()' failed. 'ret' > = '0' > > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp_rx.c > 3343 > HAL_WBM_REL_BM_ACT_PUT_IN_IDLE); > 3344 } > 3345 > 3346 if (!rx_tid->last_frag_no || > 3347 rx_tid->rx_frag_bitmap != > GENMASK(rx_tid->last_frag_no, 0)) { > 3348 mod_timer(&rx_tid->frag_timer, jiffies + > 3349 > ATH11K_DP_RX_FRAGMENT_TIMEOUT_MS); > 3350 goto out_unlock; > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > All these gotos should probably set error codes instead of returning > success. Thanks for pointing out. But, this function was written in this way on purpose. The error retval to caller and error goto's in this function perform different cleanups and moving them to caller will only make the caller function complex which is better to avoid. Thanks, Sriram.R _______________________________________________ ath11k mailing list ath11k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath11k