Mingyen Hsieh (謝明諺) <Mingyen.Hsieh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2025-03-04 at 09:10 +0000, Ping-Ke Shih wrote: > > Mingyen Hsieh <mailto:mingyen.hsieh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > +void mt7925_regd_be_ctrl(struct mt792x_dev *dev, u8 *alpha2) > > > +{ > > > + struct mt792x_phy *phy = &dev->phy; > > > + struct mt7925_clc_rule_v2 *rule; > > > + struct mt7925_clc *clc; > > > + bool old = dev->has_eht, new = true; > > > + u8 *pos; > > > + > > > + if (!phy->clc[MT792x_CLC_BE_CTRL]) > > > + goto out; > > > + > > > + clc = (struct mt7925_clc *)phy->clc[MT792x_CLC_BE_CTRL]; > > > + pos = clc->data; > > > + > > > + while (1) { > > > > while (1) could lead infinite loop unexpectedly. > > Adding a checking of clc->len would be safer. > > > > > + rule = (struct mt7925_clc_rule_v2 *)pos; > > > + > > > + if (rule->alpha2[0] == alpha2[0] && > > > + rule->alpha2[1] == alpha2[1]) { > > > + new = false; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* Check the last one */ > > > + if (rule->flag && BIT(0)) > > > + break; > > > + > > Hi Ping-Ke, > > I designed a flag to prevent the infinite loop. I knew. People believe their code is safe, but somehow `while (1)` get unexpected result. An alternative way is to use for-loop with limit range, like clc_end = &clc->data[clc->len]; for (pos = clc->data; pos < clc_end; pos += sizeof(*rule)) Just FYR. > > > > + pos += sizeof(*rule); > > > + } > > > + > > > +out: > > > + if (old == new) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + dev->has_eht = new; > > > + mt7925_set_stream_he_eht_caps(phy); > > > +} > > > + > > > > [...] > > >
