Re: [PATCH] net: mac80211: tx.c: be sure of 'sdata->vif.type' must be NL80211_IFTYPE_AP when be in NL80211_IFTYPE_AP case

Johannes Berg
2013-11-30T20:09:10Z

On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:02 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:

> >>> case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
> >>> - if (sdata->vif.type == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP)
> >>> - chanctx_conf = rcu_dereference(sdata->vif.chanctx_conf);
> >>> + chanctx_conf = rcu_dereference(sdata->vif.chanctx_conf);
> >>> if (!chanctx_conf)
> >>> goto fail_rcu;
> >>> +try_next:
> >>
> >> I don't think that's better than the (fairly obvious) fall-through, and
> >> has a pretty odd goto. Also, depending on the compiler, it still knows
> >> the previous case label and doesn't warn.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, fall-through is obvious. But check 'A' again just near by "case A"
> > seems a little strange, and some of compilers (or some of versions) are
> > really not quit smart enough to know it is not a warning.
> >
>
> Sorry, the paragraph above may lead misunderstanding, I repeated again:
>
> - fall-through is obvious (although I did not notice it, originally).
>
> - Check 'A' again just near by "case A" seems a little strange.
>
> - Some compilers aren't quit smart enough to know 'chanctx_conf' is OK.

I know. If you have any good ideas of how to make it more obvious to the
compiler, I'm all ears, I just don't like any of the solutions offered
so far (and you aren't the first to do so either) :-)

FWIW, I find the label to be odd because if you're familiar with the
code then AP/AP_VLAN *should* be identical except for two special things
that are now linearly & neatly handled in the code (the first being the
4-addr station, the second the chanctx assignment which always has to be
done regardless of 4-addr). IMHO the == check after case should be
enough to make a human reader take a closer look. I understand that you
didn't and that's OK since you were just trying to squelch compile
warnings, but I don't see that this one warrants much attention.

johannes