On 28 February 2014 10:28, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 28 February 2014 10:06, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/htc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/htc.c
>>>> @@ -202,10 +202,8 @@ static int ath10k_htc_tx_completion_handler(struct ath10k *ar,
>>>> struct ath10k_htc *htc = &ar->htc;
>>>> struct ath10k_htc_ep *ep = &htc->endpoint[eid];
>>>>
>>>> - if (!skb) {
>>>> - ath10k_warn("invalid sk_buff completion - NULL pointer. firmware crashed?\n");
>>>> + if (WARN_ON(!skb))
>>>> return 0;
>>>> - }
>>>
>>> WARN_ON() is a bit dangerous here as it might cause excessive spamming.
>>> Why did you want to change this? I think either ath10k_warn() or
>>> WARN_ON_ONCE() would be safer, but not sure which one to use.
>>
[...]
>> Perhaps WARN_ON() is a bit over the top here, but since this is now
>> more of a logic issue rather than runtime issue I decided to change it
>> from ath10k_warn to WARN_ON(). It's probably still a good idea to make
>> it _ONCE generally, although if you actually get skbuff it's already
>> too late or it should be screaming loudly because someone must've
>> changed the code in an incorrect/incomplete way.
>
> So I change it to WARN_ON_ONCE(), ok?
Sure. Thanks!
Michał
--
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
