Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] drivers/net/wireless/airo.c: correct a wrong

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:17:21PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >if
> >Reply-To: 
> >
> >The Coverity checker correctly noted that this condition can't ever be 
> >fulfilled.
> >
> >Can someone understanding this code check whether my guess what this 
> >should have been was right?
> >
> >Or should the if get completely dropped?
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> >
> >--- linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm1-full/drivers/net/wireless/airo.c.old	2005-03-22 
> >21:41:37.000000000 +0100
> >+++ linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm1-full/drivers/net/wireless/airo.c	2005-03-22 
> >21:42:01.000000000 +0100
> >@@ -3440,9 +3440,6 @@
> > 	/* Make sure we got something */
> > 	if (rxd.rdy && rxd.valid == 0) {
> > 		len = rxd.len + 12;
> >-		if (len < 12 && len > 2048)
> >-			goto badrx;
> 
> Coverity is silly.
> 
> len is signed, and so can obviously be less than zero in edge cases.  I 
> don't see where the "> 2048" test is invalid, either.

But if it's less than zero it can't be > 2048 at the same time?

The point is: len can't be both < 12 and > 2048 at the same time.


Is this "if" simply superfluous?
Or should the && be an || ?


> 	Jeff

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed