From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sujith Manoharan Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 05:31:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] ath9k: fix SC_OP_INVALID test in ath9k_tx99_init() Message-Id: <21113.53593.471557.385898@gargle.gargle.HOWL> List-Id: References: <20131105202034.GC3949@elgon.mountain> In-Reply-To: <20131105202034.GC3949@elgon.mountain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dan Carpenter Cc: "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Dan Carpenter wrote: > SC_OP_INVALID is zero so the test is always false. We're supposed to be > testing the lowest bit instead. > > Fixes: 89f927af7f33 ('ath9k: add TX99 support') > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c > index 74f452c..7ad4e11 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c > @@ -2456,7 +2456,7 @@ int ath9k_tx99_init(struct ath_softc *sc) > struct ath_tx_control txctl; > int r; > > - if (sc->sc_flags & SC_OP_INVALID) { > + if (test_bit(SC_OP_INVALID, &sc->sc_flags)) { > ath_err(common, > "driver is in invalid state unable to use TX99"); > return -EINVAL; Nice catch. The tx99 code in ath9k has been moved to a separate file, is it okay if I adopt this patch and update it ? Sujith