From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pl0-f68.google.com ([209.85.160.68]:43337 "EHLO mail-pl0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750926AbdLZUNP (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:13:15 -0500 Received: by mail-pl0-f68.google.com with SMTP id z5so18342391plo.10 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 12:13:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 12:13:12 -0800 From: Bjorn Andersson To: Colin King , Loic Poulain Cc: Eugene Krasnikov , Kalle Valo , wcn36xx@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] wcn36xx: remove redundant assignment to msg_body.min_ch_time Message-ID: <20171226201312.GA7480@builder> (sfid-20171226_211341_433510_388F117E) References: <20171219170401.15154-1-colin.king@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20171219170401.15154-1-colin.king@canonical.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue 19 Dec 09:04 PST 2017, Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King > > msg_body.min_ch_time is being assigned twice; remove the redundant > first assignment. > > Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1463042 ("Unused Value") > Happy to see Coverity working for us :) This should have had a: Fixes: 2f3bef4b247e ("wcn36xx: Add hardware scan offload support") > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King > --- > drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c > index 2914618a0335..bab2eca5fcac 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c > @@ -625,7 +625,6 @@ int wcn36xx_smd_start_hw_scan(struct wcn36xx *wcn, struct ieee80211_vif *vif, > INIT_HAL_MSG(msg_body, WCN36XX_HAL_START_SCAN_OFFLOAD_REQ); > > msg_body.scan_type = WCN36XX_HAL_SCAN_TYPE_ACTIVE; > - msg_body.min_ch_time = 30; > msg_body.min_ch_time = 100; But I strongly suspect the second line is supposed to be max_ch_time. @Loic, do you agree? Regards, Bjorn