Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 10/23/2024 6:29 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> From: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> In commit 477cabfdb776 ("wifi: ath12k: modify link arvif creation and removal
>> for MLO") I had accidentally left one personal TODO comment about using goto
>> instead of ret. Switch to use goto to be consistent with the error handling in
>> the function.
>>
>> Tested-on: WCN7850 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.HMT.1.0.c5-00481-QCAHMTSWPL_V1.0_V2.0_SILICONZ-3
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/mac.c | 3 +--
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/mac.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/mac.c
>> index f5f96a8b1d61..f45f32f3b5f6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/mac.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/mac.c
>> @@ -7047,8 +7047,7 @@ int ath12k_mac_vdev_create(struct ath12k *ar, struct ath12k_link_vif *arvif)
>> ret = ath12k_wait_for_peer_delete_done(ar, arvif->vdev_id,
>> arvif->bssid);
>> if (ret)
>> - /* KVALO: why not goto err? */
>> - return ret;
>> + goto err;
>
> why does this goto err instead of err_vdev_del?
Good point. I did this to follow the same as the next command does:
ret = ath12k_wait_for_peer_delete_done(ar, arvif->vdev_id,
arvif->bssid);
if (ret)
goto err;
But yeah, err_vdev_del looks like more approriate.
>
>>
>> ar->num_peers--;
>> }
>
> looking at the context for this patch I have a question about a different part
> of this function:
>
> param_id = WMI_VDEV_PARAM_RTS_THRESHOLD;
> param_value = hw->wiphy->rts_threshold;
> ret = ath12k_wmi_vdev_set_param_cmd(ar, arvif->vdev_id,
> param_id, param_value);
> if (ret) {
> ath12k_warn(ar->ab, "failed to set rts threshold for vdev %d: %d\n",
> arvif->vdev_id, ret);
>
> NOTE: no return or goto
>
> }
>
> ath12k_dp_vdev_tx_attach(ar, arvif);
> if (vif->type != NL80211_IFTYPE_MONITOR && ar->monitor_conf_enabled)
> ath12k_mac_monitor_vdev_create(ar);
>
> return ret;
>
> NOTE: this can return an error if the RTS threshold set fails, but fails
> without cleaning up (dp vdev still attached and monitor vdev created)
>
> Seems either we need error handling if the set param fails, or we should ret 0
> at this point
Yeah, I do not like this kind of vague error handling at all. I think we
should have either a proper error handling or a comment explaining why
we continue to the execution. An example about the comment:
ret = foo();
if (ret)
ath12k_warn("foo failed: %d", ret);
/* continue function because foo is optional */
I think this should all this should be cleaned up in a separate patch.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
