On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:57:03 PM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:48:09PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 07:00:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 06:26:14PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco
wrote:
> > > > Removed useless led_blink_hdl() prototype and definition. In
> > > > wlancmds[]
> > > > the slot #60 is now set to NULL using the macro
> > > > GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER. This change has not unwanted side effects
> > > > because the code in rtw_cmd.c checks if the function pointer is
> > > > valid before using it.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Changes since v1: Corrected a bad solution to this issue that made
> > > > use of an unnecessary dummy function.
> > > >
> > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 9 ---------
> > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/rtw_mlme_ext.h | 1 -
> > > > 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > > b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c index
> > > > 0297fbad7bce..f82dbd4f4c3d 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > > @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static struct cmd_hdl wlancmds[] = {
> > > >
> > > > GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(0, h2c_msg_hdl) /*58*/
> > > > GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(sizeof(struct SetChannelPlan_param),
> > > > set_chplan_hdl) /*59*/> > >
> > > > - GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(sizeof(struct LedBlink_param),
> > > > led_blink_hdl) /*60*/ + GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(0, NULL) /*60*/
> > >
> > > Better, but you really do not need to keep this here, right? Remove
> > > the
> > > "led blink command" entirely, you didn't do that here.
> >
> > No, this is right. We have to put a NULL function pointer in the array
> > or the indexing will be off. But Fabio is correct that the struct
> > type should be removed.
>
> The indexing can be off, just remove the other place where the "command"
> is in the index and all is good as rebuilding will fix it. These are
> not external "values" we have to keep stable.
>
> This has been done for other drivers exactly like this, there are loads
> of "odd" commands in there that should not be.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
I'm not sure if this task is so close related to deserve a v3 or if I
should make a new v1 patch with a different "Subject".
Thanks,
Fabio
