Hi Dan,
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:32:31 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 03:40:24PM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:41:13 +0300
> > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 04:35:24AM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:
> > > > Hi Dan,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:27:44 +0300
> > > > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:15:01AM +0530, Ajay Singh
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c index
> > > > > > 85af365..8e71c28 100644 ---
> > > > > > a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c +++
> > > > > > b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c @@ -850,13 +850,13
> > > > > > @@ static void wilc_wlan_handle_isr_ext(struct wilc *wilc,
> > > > > > u32 int_status) if (wilc->rx_buffer) buffer =
> > > > > > &wilc->rx_buffer[offset]; else
> > > > > > - goto _end_;
> > > > > > + goto end;
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't related to your patch but this goto doesn't appear
> > > > > to make any sort of sense. I have no idea what was intended.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for pointing it out. I will include these changes in
> > > > separate patchset.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the position of goto label can be moved just before
> > > > wilc_wlan_handle_rxq(wilc), as 'ret' will always be '0' when
> > > > goto statement is executed.
> > > >
> > > > Actually earlier there were few more goto statement in this
> > > > function and single label 'end' was used to handle for
> > > > different cases. But in previous cleanup patches those cases
> > > > were removed. Now this function can be further refactor by
> > > > either moving goto label before wilc_wlan_handle_rxq(wilc) or
> > > > avoid goto use by adding the rx_buffer validation along with
> > > > size check.
> > > >
> > > > i.e
> > > >
> > > > end:
> > > > wilc_wlan_handle_rxq(wilc)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OR
> > > >
> > > > if (size > 0 && wilc->rx_buffer) {
> > > >
> > > > ....
> > > > }
> > > > wilc_wlan_handle_rxq(wilc)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually looking at it now, you could probably just remove the if
> > > statement. Hopefully wilc->rx_buffer is non-NULL at this point?
> > > Is there really any need to call wilc_wlan_handle_rxq() when we
> > > haven't called wilc_wlan_rxq_add()?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, wilc->rx_buffer would be non NULL value as its only one time
> > allocated buffer. wilc_wlan_handle_rxq() was called without
> > wilc_wlan_rxq_add() just as a fail safe to ensure there are no
> > pending packets in the queue.
>
> The only thing is wilc->quit can be set. Otherwise if ->rx_buffer is
> NULL it would just result in a NULL dereference. (We are deep into
> hypotheticals here because we're discussing impossible code).
>
I have prepared a patch based on the feedback. The patch is submitted
in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10551703/.
Regards,
Ajay
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
