* [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver
@ 2018-04-05 1:25 Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-04-05 2:06 ` Pkshih
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2018-04-05 1:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yan-Hsuan Chuang, Ping-Ke Shih, Kalle Valo
Cc: linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Gustavo A. R. Silva
Hi all,
While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8821a1ant.c:1581:
1581 static void btc8821a1ant_act_bt_sco_hid_only_busy(struct btc_coexist *btcoexist,
1582 u8 wifi_status)
1583 {
1584 /* tdma and coex table */
1585 btc8821a1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, true, 5);
1586
1587 if (BT_8821A_1ANT_WIFI_STATUS_NON_CONNECTED_ASSO_AUTH_SCAN ==
1588 wifi_status)
1589 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
1590 else
1591 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
1592 }
The issue here is that the code for both branches of the if-else statement is identical.
The if-else was introduced a year ago in this commit c6821613e653
I wonder if an argument should be changed in any of the calls to btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type?
What do you think?
Thanks
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver
2018-04-05 1:25 [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2018-04-05 2:06 ` Pkshih
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Pkshih @ 2018-04-05 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 莊彥宣, kvalo@codeaurora.org,
gustavo@embeddedor.com
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 01:25 +0000, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8821a1ant.c:1581:
>
> 1581 static void btc8821a1ant_act_bt_sco_hid_only_busy(struct btc_coexist *btcoexist,
> 1582 u8 wifi_status)
> 1583 {
> 1584 /* tdma and coex table */
> 1585 btc8821a1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, true, 5);
> 1586
> 1587 if (BT_8821A_1ANT_WIFI_STATUS_NON_CONNECTED_ASSO_AUTH_SCAN ==
> 1588 wifi_status)
> 1589 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
> 1590 else
> 1591 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
> 1592 }
>
> The issue here is that the code for both branches of the if-else statement is identical.
>
> The if-else was introduced a year ago in this commit c6821613e653
>
> I wonder if an argument should be changed in any of the calls to
> btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type?
>
>
It looks weird. Since we're in spring vacation, I'll check my colleague next Monday.
PK
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-04-05 2:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-04-05 1:25 [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-04-05 2:06 ` Pkshih
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).