[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1436639.AmJiDmeQZF@al>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 11:26:50 +0200
From: Peter Wu <peter@...ensteyn.nl>
To: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Cc: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>,
Chaoming Li <chaoming_li@...lsil.com.cn>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: rtlwifi: rtl8192de: hw.c: Cleaning up conjunction always evaluates to false
On Saturday 07 June 2014 19:01:20 Larry Finger wrote:
> As you have learned here, automatically making changes suggested by some tool
> may convert a visible bug into one that is invisible, and only found by a
> detailed line-by-line examination of the code, and that is unlikely to happen.
> Please be careful.
>
> From everything I see, the test in all drivers should be
>
> if ((bt_msr & MSR_AP) == MSR_AP)
That only happens to be case because MSR_INFRA | MSR_ADHOC == MSR_AP. This
seems to be the intent:
#define MSR_MASK 0x03
if ((bt_msr & MSR_MASK) == MSR_AP)
In rtl8192se, there are also MSR_LINK_... constants covering MSR_...
and in addition, there is a MSR_LINK_MASK. These macros are quite
redundant though given the other definitions, but the mask is still
nice to have I guess.
Also, personally I would submit just one patch touching all drivers, but
I see that Rickard has submitted a bunch of patches (without cover letter
either, making it more difficult to group them). What would you prefer,
a single patch touching multiple drivers (as the changes are mostly the
same) or split patches?
Kind regards,
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists