Hi Stanislaw,
> 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.
Ok. Because the patch-set has not been integrated yet, I have sent an updated
version instead of a follow-up patch.
-Gabor
--
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
