Pkshih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> > I check the size of object files before/after this patch, and
>> >> > the original one is smaller.
>> >> >
>> >> > text data bss dec hex filename
>> >> > 16781 3392 1 20174 4ece core-0.o // original
>> >> > 16819 3392 1 20212 4ef4 core-1.o // after this patch
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you think it is worth to apply this patch?
>> >>
>> >> I think that we should apply the patch. Even though the compiler _may_
>> >> reorder the code, it might choose not to do that.
>> >
>> > Understand.
>> >
>> > I have another way to fix this coverity warning, like:
>> >
>> > @@ -1617,7 +1617,7 @@ static bool rtw89_core_txq_agg_wait(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
>> > {
>> > struct rtw89_txq *rtwtxq = (struct rtw89_txq *)txq->drv_priv;
>> > struct ieee80211_sta *sta = txq->sta;
>> > - struct rtw89_sta *rtwsta = (struct rtw89_sta *)sta->drv_priv;
>> > + struct rtw89_sta *rtwsta = sta ? (struct rtw89_sta *)sta->drv_priv : NULL;
>> >
>> > if (!sta || rtwsta->max_agg_wait <= 0)
>> > return false;
>> >
>> > Is this acceptable?
>> > It has a little redundant checking of 'sta', but the code looks clean.
>>
>> I feel that Colin's fix is more readable, but this is just matter of
>> taste. You can choose.
>
> I would like my version.
>
> There are three similar warnings reported by smatch, so I will fix them by
> myself. Please drop this patch.
Ok, dropped.
> But, still thank Colin to point out this issue.
Indeed, thanks Colin. A good way to thank is to add Reported-by to the
commit log.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
