linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] wifi: rtw89: 8852a: remove redundant else statement

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: <7aad60c126214fdf9fd144d0a085b3fd@realtek.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 02:22:55 +0000
From: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
To: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>,
        Colin Ian King
	<colin.i.king@...il.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] wifi: rtw89: 8852a: remove redundant else statement

Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/2024 6:14 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > The cascaded if statements covers all 16 bit values in the comparisons
> > of dgain and the last else statement is not reachable and hence
> > dead code. Remove it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852a_rfk.c | 2 --
> >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852a_rfk.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852a_rfk.c
> > index 9db8713ac99b..f3568c4d0af6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852a_rfk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852a_rfk.c
> > @@ -2248,8 +2248,6 @@ static s8 _dpk_dgain_mapping(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, u16 dgain)
> >               offset = -9;
> >       else if (dgain <= 0x155)
> 
> should you drop the test and unconditionally return -12 here?

Agree +1. People don't suspect the else case at first glance. 

> 
> >               offset = -12;
> > -     else
> > -             offset = 0x0;
> >
> >       return offset;
> >  }
>