Tony Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 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).
Sounds good to me.
--
Kalle Valo
