On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:58:52PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 1/26/22 13:48, Greg KH wrote: > > > IMHO the best thing you can do is to leave these reads and leave a comment > > > like "hey, please remove me and test". One day useless reads should be > > > anyway removed, since ideally rtw_read family must get __must_check > > > annotation + normal error handling. > > > > No, if these were never getting called in normal operation, there's no > > need to add them back. > > > > I guess, I was not clear, sorry. I mean leave reads that were called during > normal operations, but used only for printing debug info. (As Phillip has > already done in v1) > > Reads inside R88_DBG() and other debug macros of course should be removed, > but other places seems dangerous without good testing. There is al least one > place with following comment: > > > /* Although lenc is only used in a debug statement, > > * do not remove it as the rtw_read16() call consumes > > * 2 bytes from the EEPROM source. > > */ > > u16 lenc = rtw_read16(adapter, REG_PKTBUF_DBG_DATA_L); > > There is a chance that other places have same problem, but don't have a > comment above it. That's why I suggested to leave all these "debug" reads > and leave a comment for further work. It will help to easily spot them in > future and remove or leave them with explanations why. Yes, those are fine, thanks.
