Hi
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:23:26PM +0200, Gabor Juhos wrote:
> > I have two nit-picks, but they can be fixed later on top of your current
> > patches.
> >
> >> + if (WARN_ON(word >= EEPROM_WORD_COUNT)) {
> >> + rt2x00_warn(rt2x00dev, "invalid EEPROM word %d\n", word);
> >> + return 0;
> >> + }
> >
> > Since we take "enum rt2800_eeprom_word" as word argument, it can not
> > have different values than already listed, so this warning is not needed.
>
> EEPROM_WORD_COUNT is listed in the enums and the word argument can be equal to
> that, however it is not a valid index for the EEPROM map. Additionally, if
> someone puts a new enum value after EEPROM_WORD_COUNT by mistake that will be an
> invalid index as well.
I do not feel that there is big chance that someone will do such
mistakes, but yes, they are at least theoretically possible, so warning
can stay.
> My reason behind the rt2x00_warn call was that it shows the wiphy name. If you
> are testing different devices in parallel it is good to know which one causes
> the warning. However I can use 'wiphy_name(rt2x00dev->hw->wiphy)' to get that
> information.
>
> I will send a follow-up patch which removes the rt2x00_warn calls. Do you also
> prefer WARN_ONCE instead of WARN?
I prefer WARN_ONCE variant to avoid possible spamming dmesg with lot of
warnings.
Thanks
Stanislaw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
