Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
The warning was there:
[ 297.186612] ath11k_pci 0000:06:00.0: failed to suspend hif: 0
But I had missed that because suspend was still working due to
ath11k_core_suspend() returning 0. I'll update the commit log and
mention about that spurious warning.
Thank you Dan, this was a very good catch! In the future I'll grep my
logs more carefully, updated my scripts already.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
