netdev - Re: [PATCH][next] wcn36xx: remove redundant assignment to msg_body.min_ch

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 29 Dec 2017 08:44:22 +0100
From:   Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Eugene Krasnikov <k.eugene.e@...il.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, wcn36xx@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] wcn36xx: remove redundant assignment to msg_body.min_ch_time

Hi Colin, Bjorn,

On 26 December 2017 at 21:13, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Tue 19 Dec 09:04 PST 2017, Colin King wrote:
>
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> msg_body.min_ch_time is being assigned twice; remove the redundant
>> first assignment.
>>
>> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1463042 ("Unused Value")
>>
>
> Happy to see Coverity working for us :)
>
>
> This should have had a:
>
> Fixes: 2f3bef4b247e ("wcn36xx: Add hardware scan offload support")
>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c | 1 -
>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c
>> index 2914618a0335..bab2eca5fcac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c
>> @@ -625,7 +625,6 @@ int wcn36xx_smd_start_hw_scan(struct wcn36xx *wcn, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
>>       INIT_HAL_MSG(msg_body, WCN36XX_HAL_START_SCAN_OFFLOAD_REQ);
>>
>>       msg_body.scan_type = WCN36XX_HAL_SCAN_TYPE_ACTIVE;
>> -     msg_body.min_ch_time = 30;
>>       msg_body.min_ch_time = 100;
>
> But I strongly suspect the second line is supposed to be max_ch_time.
>
> @Loic, do you agree?

You're absolutely right.
Colin could you please update your patch accordingly?

Regards,
Loic