On Friday 3 January 2020 10:21:16 CET Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 05:03:40PM +0000, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> > From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Currently, number of available tx retry policies is checked two times.
> > Only one is sufficient.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c
> > index 32e269becd75..c9dea627661f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c
> > @@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int wfx_tx_policy_get(struct wfx_vif *wvif,
> > wfx_tx_policy_build(wvif, &wanted, rates);
> >
> > spin_lock_bh(&cache->lock);
> > - if (WARN_ON(list_empty(&cache->free))) {
> > + if (list_empty(&cache->free)) {
> > + WARN(1, "unable to get a valid Tx policy");
> > spin_unlock_bh(&cache->lock);
> > return WFX_INVALID_RATE_ID;
>
> This warning is more clear than the original which is good, but that's
> not what the commit message says. How does this fix a double warning?
Err... Indeed, it don't. From wfx_tx_get_rate_id():
rate_id = wfx_tx_policy_get(wvif, ...);
if (rate_id == WFX_INVALID_RATE_ID)
dev_warn(wvif->wdev->dev, "unable to get a valid Tx policy");
I will fix that in my next PR.
--
Jérôme Pouiller
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
