On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 06:49 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> > > + /* Check if chain signal is not filled, for cases avg was filled by
> > > + * driver bug last chain signal was not.
> > > + */
> > > + if (last_rxstats->chains &&
> > > + !(sinfo->filled & (BIT_ULL(NL80211_STA_INFO_CHAIN_SIGNAL)))) {
> > > + sinfo->filled |= BIT_ULL(NL80211_STA_INFO_CHAIN_SIGNAL);
> > > +
> > > + sinfo->chains = last_rxstats->chains;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sinfo->chain_signal); i++) {
> > > + sinfo->chain_signal[i] =
> > > + last_rxstats->chain_signal_last[i];
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > >
> >
> > Now you've duplicated this code ... you can remove it above, no?
>
> The conditional check in this second block is different. It is one reason
> why I added the other comment in the preceeding code.
Oh, sure, I get that.
But I mean you can end up setting sinfo->chains and all of the values in
sinfo->chain_signal[i] with both cases: when "both are unset" or when
"just chain signal is unset"?
So wouldn't it be more or less equivalent to do
if (!signal-filled) { fill signal }
which is your new code here, and thus have
if (!signal-filled) { fill signal }
if (!signal-avg-filled) { fill avg signal }
rather than
if (!signal-filled && !signal-avg-filled) {
fill signal, fill avg-signal
}
if (!signal-filled) {
fill signal
}
or am I misreading that?
johannes
