On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 07:36:57PM +0100, Phillip Potter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 09:48:03AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 12:11:50AM +0100, Phillip Potter wrote:
> > > -u8 rtw_set_802_11_add_wep(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_802_11_wep *wep)
> > > +int rtw_set_802_11_add_wep(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_802_11_wep *wep)
> > > {
> > > int keyid, res;
> > > struct security_priv *psecuritypriv = &padapter->securitypriv;
> > > - u8 ret = _SUCCESS;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > >
> > > keyid = wep->KeyIndex & 0x3fffffff;
> > >
> > > if (keyid >= 4) {
> > > - ret = false;
> > > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > goto exit;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ u8 rtw_set_802_11_add_wep(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_802_11_wep *wep)
> > > res = rtw_set_key(padapter, psecuritypriv, keyid, 1);
> > >
> > > if (res == _FAIL)
> > > - ret = false;
> > > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > exit:
> > >
> > > return ret;
> >
> > No, this isn't right. This now returns 1 on success and negative
> > error codes on error.
> >
> > There are a couple anti-patterns here:
> >
> > 1) Do nothing gotos
> > 2) Mixing error paths and success paths.
> >
> > If you avoid mixing error paths and success paths then you get a pattern
> > called: "Solid return zero." This is where the end of the function has
> > a very chunky "return 0;" to mark that it is successful. You want that.
> > Some people do a "if (ret == 0) return ret;". Nope. "return ret;" is
> > not chunky.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thank you for the review firstly, much appreciated.
>
> I'm happy of course to rewrite this to address any concerns, but
> I was hoping I could clarify what you've said though? Apologies if I've
> missed it, but how is this function now returning 1 on success? It sets
> ret to 0 (success) at the start and then sets it to one of two negative
> error codes depending on what happens. Am I missing something here?
> (Perfectly possible that I am).
You're right. I misread "res" as "ret". It's another anti-pattern to
have two "ret" variables. The code is fine but so ugly for no reason.
regards,
dan carpenter
