RE: [PATCH v2 00/12] wifi: rtlwifi: Add new rtl8192du driver

[Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>]

> >   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192d/phy_common.h:60:39: warning: context imbalance in
> > 'rtl92d_bandtype_2_4G' - unexpected unlock
> >   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192d/phy_common.h:60:39: warning: context imbalance in
> > 'rtl92d_dm_false_alarm_counter_statistics' - unexpected unlock
> >   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192d/phy_common.h:60:39: warning: context imbalance in
> > 'rtl92d_dm_cck_packet_detection_thresh' - unexpected unlock
> 
> These look like false positives. Every unlock is preceded by
> a lock. I found a suggestion to annotate the functions with
> "__acquires(...)" and "__releases(...)" to quiet these warnings,
> but that didn't do anything. I can only fix it by copying the
> contents of rtl92d_acquire_cckandrw_pagea_ctl() and
> rtl92d_release_cckandrw_pagea_ctl() to the eight places where
> they are called, and duplicating the code that needs locking:
> 
>         if (rtlpriv->rtlhal.interfaceindex == 1 &&
>             rtlpriv->rtlhal.interface == INTF_PCI) {
>                 spin_lock_irqsave(&rtlpriv->locks.cck_and_rw_pagea_lock, flag);
>                 temp_cck = rtl_get_bbreg(hw, RCCK0_TXFILTER2,
>                                          MASKDWORD) & MASKCCK;
>                 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtlpriv->locks.cck_and_rw_pagea_lock, flag);
>         } else {
>                 temp_cck = rtl_get_bbreg(hw, RCCK0_TXFILTER2,
>                                          MASKDWORD) & MASKCCK;
>         }
> 

Duplicate of main statements 'temp_cck = ....' isn't good. I prefer

bool need_lock = rtlpriv->rtlhal.interfaceindex == 1 &&
                 rtlpriv->rtlhal.interface == INTF_PCI;

if (need_lock)
	spin_lock_irqsave(&rtlpriv->locks.cck_and_rw_pagea_lock, flag);

	temp_cck = rtl_get_bbreg(hw, RCCK0_TXFILTER2, MASKDWORD) & MASKCCK;

if (need_lock)
	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtlpriv->locks.cck_and_rw_pagea_lock, flag);


But, I wonder why sparse doesn't complain original code (before your patchset)
that used static inline already. Can we keep original style?

Ping-Ke