iwlwifi RFC related to iwl_mvm_tx_reclaim

[Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I'm seeing a crash due to accessing an 'sta' object in this method that is '-2' as integer.

It fails the initial check for null STA, but I'm thinking it might should check for IS_ERR(sta)
as well.

(I have my own patch that references sta before the IS_ERR check later in the code, and this
causes the crash I'm seeing.  I guess upstream will not crash in this situation.).

My question:  Is the patch below a preferred approach, or should I add special checks to where I
access sta and only exit the method lower where it already has the IS_ERR(sta) check?

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/tx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/tx.c
index 0567f4eefebc..bd3d2fe424cd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/tx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/tx.c
@@ -2337,7 +2337,7 @@ static void iwl_mvm_tx_reclaim(struct iwl_mvm *mvm, int sta_id, int tid,
        sta = rcu_dereference(mvm->fw_id_to_mac_id[sta_id]);

        /* Reclaiming frames for a station that has been deleted ? */
-       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!sta)) {
+       if (IS_ERR(sta) || !sta) {
                rcu_read_unlock();
                return;
        }

Thanks,
Ben

--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com