On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 01:09:20PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 02:48:35PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:53:45AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:24:15AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > > > > @@ -587,17 +587,12 @@ void HTOnAssocRsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee)
> > > > > else
> > > > > pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_64K;
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > - if (pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor < HT_AGG_SIZE_32K)
> > > > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor =
> > > > > - pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor;
> > > > > - else
> > > > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_32K;
> > > > > + pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = min_t(u32, pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor,
> > > > > + HT_AGG_SIZE_32K);
> > > >
> > > > For min() to fail there must be a signed v unsigned mismatch.
> > > > Maybe that ought to be fixed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > u32 is the right choice here.
> > >
> > > I'm having a hard time understanding your email. You might be saying
> > > we could declare HT_AGG_SIZE_32K as a u32 so then we could use min()
> > > instead of min_t()? HT_AGG_SIZE_32K is an enum.
> > >
> > > pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor is a bitfield.
> > >
> > > u8 MaxRxAMPDUFactor:2;
> > >
> > > We will never be able to use min().
> >
> > I think we could do min((u32)a, (u32)b), but it is just unwrapped min_t
> > if I understand David's comment.
> >
>
> No. Do not do that. I think it's a checkpatch warning. What you have
> is fine.
>
> > >
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > > - if (pHTInfo->MPDU_Density > pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity)
> > > > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pHTInfo->MPDU_Density;
> > > > > - else
> > > > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity;
> > > > > + pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = max_t(u8, pHTInfo->MPDU_Density,
> > > > > + pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity);
> > > >
> > > > Using u8 with max_t() really doesn't make any sense.
> > >
> > > Using u8 looks wrong because you would worry that one of the types is
> > > larger than U8_MAX. But it's actually fine. The types are u8 vs another
> > > bitfield. I would probably have gone with u32 here as well.
> > I will take your advise and upgrade the type to u32 as a revision.
>
> Sounds good. It's not something I would have asked you to redo the
> patch over, but it would have been my personal preference.
That is no problem. I am waiting on David to elaborate on his feedback and
accordingly plan a consolidated revision.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
