linux-kernel - Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH v2] Staging: rtl8723bs: rtw

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]

Message-ID: <4deeaef8f8e0f23a9adbfd7d98840624e2994cf2.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 14 Mar 2020 16:58:16 +0530
From:   Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com, sbrivio@...hat.com,
        daniel.baluta@...il.com, nramas@...ux.microsoft.com,
        hverkuil@...all.nl, Larry.Finger@...inger.net
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH v2] Staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_mlme:
 Remove unnecessary conditions

On Fri, 2020-03-13 at 14:21 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

Hi Joe,

> On Fri, 2020-03-13 at 15:59 +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote:
> > Remove unnecessary if and else conditions since both are leading to
> > the
> > initialization of "phtpriv->ampdu_enable" with the same value.
> > Also, remove the unnecessary else-if condition since it does
> > nothing.
> 
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme.c
> > b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme.c
> 
> []
> > @@ -2772,16 +2772,7 @@ void rtw_update_ht_cap(struct adapter
> > *padapter, u8 *pie, uint ie_len, u8 channe
> >  
> >  	/* maybe needs check if ap supports rx ampdu. */
> >  	if (!(phtpriv->ampdu_enable) && pregistrypriv->ampdu_enable ==
> > 1) {
> > -		if (pregistrypriv->wifi_spec == 1) {
> > -			/* remove this part because testbed AP should
> > disable RX AMPDU */
> > -			/* phtpriv->ampdu_enable = false; */
> > -			phtpriv->ampdu_enable = true;
> > -		} else {
> > -			phtpriv->ampdu_enable = true;
> > -		}
> > -	} else if (pregistrypriv->ampdu_enable == 2) {
> > -		/* remove this part because testbed AP should disable
> > RX AMPDU */
> > -		/* phtpriv->ampdu_enable = true; */
> > +		phtpriv->ampdu_enable = true;
> 
> This isn't the same test.
> 
> This could be:
>  	if ((!(phtpriv->ampdu_enable) && pregistrypriv->ampdu_enable ==
> 1)) ||
> 	    pregistrypriv->ampdu_enable == 2)
> 		phtpriv->ampdu_enable = true;
> 
> Though it is probably more sensible to just set
> phtpriv->ampdu_enable without testing whether or
> not it's already set:
> 
> 	if (pregistrypriv->ampdu_enable == 1 ||
> 	    pregistrypriv->ampdu_enable == 2)
> 		phtpriv->ampdu_enable = true;

But the else-if block which I removed in v2 of this patch had nothing
in the block.
It was not assigning any value to "phtpriv->ampdu_enable". ( basically
it was empty and useless)

Now as per your suggestion if I do the change then the value of
"phtpriv->ampdu_enable" will be changed to true when we have
"pregistrypriv->ampdu_enable == 2" condition. But in real it should be
the same as it was by default coming from the start of the function.
( This is because the else-if block was empty and doing nothing )

Please let me know if I was able to make you understand my point of
view here. Also, please correct me if I am wrong.


Thanks


> 
>