Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:09 AM Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration, but
>> we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the
>> bottom of the loop body. Refactor to avoid this unnecessary check.
>>
>> Also, increment the variable i inline for clarity
>
> Comments below.
>
>> Addresses-Coverity: 1496984 ("Null pointer dereferences)
>> Suggested-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v2: refactor in the manner suggested by Saeed
>>
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c | 12 +++---------
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c
>> index 81ddaafb6721..486886c74e6a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c
>> @@ -2307,8 +2307,8 @@ static int ath10k_sdio_dump_memory_section(struct ath10k *ar,
>> }
>>
>> count = 0;
>> -
>> - for (i = 0; cur_section; i++) {
>> + i = 0;
>> + for (; cur_section; cur_section = next_section) {
>
> You can have multiple statements in each section of a for() if you need to, e.g.
>
> for (i = 1; cur_section; cur_section = next_section, i++) {
>
> which means that the increment of i isn't hidden deep in the function body.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. But I'll apply this patch anyway, it's
still an improvement.
> That said, this function is a mess. Something (approximately) like
> this might be more readable:
>
> prev_end = memregion->start;
> for (i = 0; i < mem_region->section_table.size; i++) {
> cur_section = &mem_region->section_table.sections[i];
>
> // fail if prev_end is greater than cur_section->start - message
> from line 2329 and 2294
> // check section size - from line 2315
>
> skip_size = cur_section->start - prev_end;
>
> // check buffer size - from line 2339 - needs to account for the
> skip size too.
> // fill in the skip size amount - from line 2358 and 2304
> // ath10k_sdio_read_mem - from line 2346
>
> prev_end = cur_section->end;
> }
I agree. Anyone can come up with a patch?
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
