> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] rtw88: mac: remove dangerous while (1)
>
> <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > From: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Not to use while (1) to parse power sequence commands in an array.
> > Put the statement (when cmd is not NULL) instead to make the loop stop
> > when the next fetched command is NULL.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c | 9 +++------
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c
> > index 25a923b..7487b2e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c
> > @@ -203,17 +203,14 @@ static int rtw_pwr_seq_parser(struct rtw_dev
> *rtwdev,
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - do {
> > - cmd = cmd_seq[idx];
> > - if (!cmd)
> > - break;
> > -
> > + while ((cmd = cmd_seq[idx])) {
> > ret = rtw_sub_pwr_seq_parser(rtwdev, intf_mask, cut_mask, cmd);
> > if (ret)
> > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > + /* fetch next command */
> > idx++;
> > - } while (1);
> > + };
>
> I dount see how this is any better, with a suitable bug you can still
> have a neverending loop, right? I was thinking more something like this:
>
> count = 100;
> do {
> ....
> } while (count--);
>
> That way the won't be more than 100 loops no matter how many bugs there
> are :) Of course I have no idea what would be a good value for count.
>
To make this totally safe, I think we need to re-write the power seq parsing code.
I think I should drop this patch, and write a better code later.
And also re-write the polling command, to remove the while (1).
Yan-Hsuan
