linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mwifiex: move .get_tx

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:30:12 +0300
From:	Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>,
	Shengzhen Li <szli@...vell.com>,
	Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
	Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mwifiex: move .get_tx_power logic to station ioctl file

Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com> writes:

> From: Shengzhen Li <szli@...vell.com>
>
> Most cfg80211 operations are just a wrappers to functions defined in the
> sta_ioctl.c file, so for consistency move the .get_tx_power logic there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shengzhen Li <szli@...vell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>
> [javier: update the subject line and commit message]
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>

[...]

> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cfg80211.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cfg80211.c
> @@ -385,18 +385,10 @@ mwifiex_cfg80211_get_tx_power(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>  			      int *dbm)
>  {
>  	struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter = mwifiex_cfg80211_get_adapter(wiphy);
> -	struct mwifiex_private *priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter,
> -							MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY);
> -	int ret = mwifiex_send_cmd(priv, HostCmd_CMD_RF_TX_PWR,
> -				   HostCmd_ACT_GEN_GET, 0, NULL, true);
> -
> -	if (ret < 0)
> -		return ret;
> -
> -	/* tx_power_level is set in HostCmd_CMD_RF_TX_PWR command handler */
> -	*dbm = priv->tx_power_level;
> +	struct mwifiex_private *priv;
>  
> -	return 0;
> +	priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter, MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY);
> +	return mwifiex_get_tx_power(priv, dbm);
>  }

So in patch 1 you added the patch and in patch 2 you move it to a
different location? That doesn't make any sense, can't you just fold the
two patches into one so that the function is added only once.

-- 
Kalle Valo