On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:21 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 21:36 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > >> + if (wiphy_idx_valid(last_request->wiphy_idx)) > >> + request_wiphy = wiphy_idx_to_wiphy(last_request->wiphy_idx); > > > > All this seems pointless, wiphy_idx_to_wiphy will just return NULL if > > the index isn't valid. This is in a number of places, and it's not like > > it being invalid will be happening often so we'd have to optimise for > > it. > > The check can be removed if the WARNING is removed on > wiphy_idx_to_wiphy(). I left it as I figured it'd be good to leave the > warning, your call. Dunno, I think no warning is probably better if more than half the callers would have to check first... Also, the warning seems like it could spuriously trigger if a wiphy is removed? One other thing I noticed - why is there a conditional assert on the mutex? Shouldn't it always be locked? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
