From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from gateway33.websitewelcome.com ([192.185.146.80]:37965 "EHLO gateway33.websitewelcome.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752583AbeDEBZn (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2018 21:25:43 -0400 Received: from cm10.websitewelcome.com (cm10.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.4]) by gateway33.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA81293F52F for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:25:42 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:25:40 -0500 From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" To: Yan-Hsuan Chuang , Ping-Ke Shih , Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Subject: [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver Message-ID: <20180405012540.GA24241@embeddedor.com> (sfid-20180405_032549_191290_37E32BA4) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi all, While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8821a1ant.c:1581: 1581 static void btc8821a1ant_act_bt_sco_hid_only_busy(struct btc_coexist *btcoexist, 1582 u8 wifi_status) 1583 { 1584 /* tdma and coex table */ 1585 btc8821a1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, true, 5); 1586 1587 if (BT_8821A_1ANT_WIFI_STATUS_NON_CONNECTED_ASSO_AUTH_SCAN == 1588 wifi_status) 1589 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1); 1590 else 1591 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1); 1592 } The issue here is that the code for both branches of the if-else statement is identical. The if-else was introduced a year ago in this commit c6821613e653 I wonder if an argument should be changed in any of the calls to btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type? What do you think? Thanks -- Gustavo