On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:11:25PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:20:16PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 06:57:42AM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > >> 'hostif_mib_set_request_bool' function receives a bool as value and
> > >> send the received value with MIB_VALUE_TYPE_BOOL type. There is
> > >> one case where the value passed is not a boolean one but
> > >> 'MCAST_FILTER_PROMISC' which is '2'. Pass 'int' instead to avoid
> > >> the problem.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: 8ce76bff0e6a ("staging: ks7010: add new helpers to achieve
> > >> mib set request and simplify code")
> > >>
> > >> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c | 2 +-
> > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c
> > >> index 0ecffab..6582566 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c
> > >> @@ -1228,7 +1228,7 @@ static inline void hostif_mib_set_request_int(struct ks_wlan_private *priv,
> > >>
> > >> static inline void hostif_mib_set_request_bool(struct ks_wlan_private *priv,
> > >> enum mib_attribute attr,
> > >> - bool val)
> > >> + int val)
> > >
> > > Huh... This doesn't feel like the right thing. I thought we should
> > > change the callers to use hostif_mib_set_request_int() instead.
> >
> > Yes, I though to call that instead at first moment but I end up in revert to the
> > previous behaviour...
>
> It's a tricky thing...
>
> The choices are:
>
> 1) Fix it in the CorrectWay[tm] which we both agree is
> hostif_mib_set_request_int()
>
> 2) Revert to something that looks buggy. But there is a chance it has
> been tested and works. We would hide the static checker warning
> which would make the bug harder to fix in the future.
>
> 3) Leave the code as-is and wait until someone can test it. At least
> the static checker warning is there so we will fix it eventually.
>
> I feel like we should take option 1 and if no one complains that means
> either no one is using the driver or it works. Long term that's the
> best option.
Agreed. I'll send a v2 patch calling 'hostif_mib_set_request_int'.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Best regards,
Sergio Paracuellos
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
