From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f47.google.com (mail-wr1-f47.google.com [209.85.221.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88A11A5B; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 10:09:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f47.google.com with SMTP id w14so1913901wru.8; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 03:09:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=L0wnizAzl3HkVHdeAXObckS2MEtXEo1KXOTu1gmrjbk=; b=j/odngKPWcdtC3w4YSMdl/4iRBvHz/8j6MaJk4gDTA1b3eQgrjqGq9fVw4M/Yfdu6M k5saHmHEtX8ewFe+tqAwTKRhvPUMk0FEaFYbSIMtRAwsmcX3Me5hphhQc2k9PaUYOojk dRMJVOoWaecI6lN3Rd4eFkS8AhoFxVJILx0pzWPiqcm1PhN5mZs7iTFkyhtLkezLA3ws zlm7dQP3F4nFCtA4knaeqdNwEyIEjpiQ9DSv7YADzfwtzX4S+Sb5dG47O1R13Ylvz3yS BbnbdkACoJZ0D2cz9MNE2kJoE3CKchY5Qq5ItVrWHtYKJ6Z+1gmncMGu9fhUDAeGqf5L udug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=L0wnizAzl3HkVHdeAXObckS2MEtXEo1KXOTu1gmrjbk=; b=I6mhiexfY1KWJ9szWS7JEy7TdQmHfMxdAIh/mHS36Ano60dK6C9hx5jS1JA1lntqpK Qg3fc3IIBwrvKD/DJRXuTWa/Qp8AeeZXKVwRDDc8wMjsmf3i3XGFZK4cgN78JHqIMWMj IIFjRccp3g+60IFFJFofZ8nFNuqjw1M0OZ5/oviE0RPcnSySAUv6ovuaa437V3660ujK 5c25pI8SjF2m0HlsneaZcWq85pxnRWs9VKWoXJlNNn2ZJ91K2h030u9fsFP0uTVE2WD7 LwrRZHDX47VM5vNTGJPEMzEb/9LClyIhuvaEGeDtqtTgXHdiCwxyjVtBFJCKkTJZe5sl hriw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3U1XyiCB+9vcszsp7RzWO884gqTniJXqWX6KzWSDeqW22MeGZ9 KctDjmP9x+rNYFxIsN47q+g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6iBUKFK5LiPO819JziFcRSUmE8DawVilmyWPheq+jFToya3+y9gunIwcfD0mwQwZ1TBL1Exg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f14e:0:b0:236:d073:dad with SMTP id y14-20020adff14e000000b00236d0730dadmr12531228wro.15.1667470164615; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 03:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([102.36.222.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q14-20020a05600c46ce00b003b4ac05a8a4sm5547149wmo.27.2022.11.03.03.09.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Nov 2022 03:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:09:20 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Deepak R Varma Cc: David Laight , "outreachy@lists.linux.dev" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-staging@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192e: Use min_t/max_t macros for variable comparison Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 02:48:35PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:53:45AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:24:15AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c > > > > @@ -587,17 +587,12 @@ void HTOnAssocRsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee) > > > > else > > > > pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_64K; > > > > } else { > > > > - if (pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor < HT_AGG_SIZE_32K) > > > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = > > > > - pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor; > > > > - else > > > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_32K; > > > > + pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = min_t(u32, pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor, > > > > + HT_AGG_SIZE_32K); > > > > > > For min() to fail there must be a signed v unsigned mismatch. > > > Maybe that ought to be fixed. > > > > > > > u32 is the right choice here. > > > > I'm having a hard time understanding your email. You might be saying > > we could declare HT_AGG_SIZE_32K as a u32 so then we could use min() > > instead of min_t()? HT_AGG_SIZE_32K is an enum. > > > > pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor is a bitfield. > > > > u8 MaxRxAMPDUFactor:2; > > > > We will never be able to use min(). > > I think we could do min((u32)a, (u32)b), but it is just unwrapped min_t > if I understand David's comment. > No. Do not do that. I think it's a checkpatch warning. What you have is fine. > > > > > > } > > > > } > > > > - if (pHTInfo->MPDU_Density > pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity) > > > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pHTInfo->MPDU_Density; > > > > - else > > > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity; > > > > + pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = max_t(u8, pHTInfo->MPDU_Density, > > > > + pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity); > > > > > > Using u8 with max_t() really doesn't make any sense. > > > > Using u8 looks wrong because you would worry that one of the types is > > larger than U8_MAX. But it's actually fine. The types are u8 vs another > > bitfield. I would probably have gone with u32 here as well. > I will take your advise and upgrade the type to u32 as a revision. Sounds good. It's not something I would have asked you to redo the patch over, but it would have been my personal preference. regards, dan carpenter