lilinmao <lilinmao@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I'm very sorry for the various issues encountered during my first patch submission.
>
> My patch didn't change the original logic of the code.Perhaps I just changed the way
> of writing the code to avoid the cppcheck issue.
>
>>The original logic looks like
>>
>>bool found = false;
>>
>>for (idx = 0; idx < RTW89_IQK_CHS_NR; idx++)
>>if (expr) {
>>found = true;
>>break;
>>}
>>
>>if (!found) {
>>... [A]
>>}
>
> After the 'for' loop ends, 'if (idx > RTW89_IQK_CHS_NR - 1)' is
> equivalent to 'if (!found). Cppcheck might not have detected the
> changes to 'idx' within branch [A] which leads it to believe later
> that 'idx' could be greater than or equal to 'RTW89_IQK_CHS_NR'.
Our lists drop all html mail, so please use text/plain format and don't
top post. More info in the wiki link below.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
