From: "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
To: "kvalo@codeaurora.org" <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
"xypron.glpk@gmx.de" <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>,
"Berg, Johannes" <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
"Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
Cc: linuxwifi <linuxwifi@intel.com>,
"eyal@wizery.com" <eyal@wizery.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"Greenman, Gregory" <gregory.greenman@intel.com>,
"Bondar, Alexander" <alexander.bondar@intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwlwifi: rs: remove superfluous check
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 08:27:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1463646433.29999.50.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1463527868-12226-1-git-send-email-xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 01:31 +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> If we dereference a variable anyway in other parts of the code,
> there is no need to check against NULL in a single place.
NACK. This is not true.
If lq_sta is NULL, it means that mvm_sta is also NULL. Then we call
the rate_control_send with mvm_sta == NULL:
if (rate_control_send_low(sta, mvm_sta, txrc))
return;
The rate_control_send_low() function looks like this:
bool rate_control_send_low(struct ieee80211_sta *pubsta,
void *priv_sta,
struct ieee80211_tx_rate_control *txrc)
{
[...]
if (!pubsta || !priv_sta || rc_no_data_or_no_ack_use_min(txrc)) {
[...]
return true;
}
[...]
}
Which means that if priv_sta (aka mvm_sta) is NULL, we will return
without running the rest of rs_get_rate() where lq_sta is accessed
without checks.
I admit that the rs_get_rate() function is a bit hard to read, but
removing the lq_sta check as you did doesn't help, but makes things
worse.
--
Cheers,
Luca.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-19 8:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-17 23:31 [PATCH 1/1] iwlwifi: rs: remove superfluous check Heinrich Schuchardt
2016-05-19 8:27 ` Coelho, Luciano [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1463646433.29999.50.camel@intel.com \
--to=luciano.coelho@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.bondar@intel.com \
--cc=emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com \
--cc=eyal@wizery.com \
--cc=gregory.greenman@intel.com \
--cc=johannes.berg@intel.com \
--cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxwifi@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xypron.glpk@gmx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).