Re: [PATCH v3]hostap:hostap_ioctl.c Fix variable 'ret' set but not used

["Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>]

On 08/02/2010 08:31 PM, Julian Calaby wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:49, Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 08/02/2010 07:31 PM, Julian Calaby wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:23, Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>
>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> wait im lost.. looking at your patch looks the same(number wise) except I
>>>> see different parts of code in there:
>>>>
>>>> hostap_set_word(dev, HFA384X_RID_CNFROAMINGMODE,
>>>>                                 HFA384X_ROAMING_FIRMWARE);
>>>>
>>>> -       return 0;
>>>> +       return ret;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mine is:
>>>>
>>>> printk(KERN_DEBUG "SCANREQUEST failed\n");
>>>> -               ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> +               return ret;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The tree Im using is Linus's tree.
>>>
>>> I'm using wireless-testing, and the line you're changing is #1692, I'm
>>> changing #1699.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>
>>
>> ahh.. so there's two return ret's that need to be added then..
>> (if so then go ahead and take my patch and add it to yours.. I'm off to
>> other things)
>
> No.
>
> The function works like this:
>
> 1. set up scan_req
> 2. if local->host_roaming is not set, set host roaming on the hardware
> 3. set scan_req on the hardware
> 4. if local->host_roaming is not set, set the hardware to do firmware roaming
> 5. If set_req could not be set on the hardware, return -EINVAL,
> otherwise return 0.
>
> The significant bits are steps 2 and 4. These must *both* be executed,
> regardless of whether setting scan_req on the hardware succeeds or
> not.
>
> As such, the return value is stored in the ret variable, which is
> initialised to 0 initially, then set to -EINVAL if setting scan_req on
> the hardware fails. Hence, step 5 can be performed by returning ret.
>
> As such, all of your patches are wrong as they are either returning
> the wrong value when setting scan_req on the hardware fails, or
> failing to execute step 4. The *only* correct place to return a value
> is once the roaming status of the hardware has been set properly -
> i.e. at the end of the function.
>
> I hope this has cleared up your confusion.
>
> Thanks,
>


cleared it up perfectly... didnt think that using ret down more would 
work..(was stuck a few lines up)  but it does.. just tested your version 
out and no warning messages..

cheers,

Justin P. Mattock