Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The "if (!ret)" condition is inverted and it should be "if (ret)". It
> means that we return success when we had intended to return an error
> code.
>
> Fixes: d1b0c33850d2 ("ath11k: implement suspend for QCA6390 PCI devices")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c
> index b97c38b9a270..350b7913622c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ int ath11k_core_suspend(struct ath11k_base *ab)
> ath11k_hif_ce_irq_disable(ab);
>
> ret = ath11k_hif_suspend(ab);
> - if (!ret) {
> + if (ret) {
> ath11k_warn(ab, "failed to suspend hif: %d\n", ret);
> return ret;
> }
I suspect I created these bugs while cleaning up the patches. But I
don't get how I missed them in testing, that's a mystery to me.
Anyway, I'll queue these two to v5.11.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
