[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180405012540.GA24241@embeddedor.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:25:40 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@...ltek.com>,
Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Subject: [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver
Hi all,
While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8821a1ant.c:1581:
1581 static void btc8821a1ant_act_bt_sco_hid_only_busy(struct btc_coexist *btcoexist,
1582 u8 wifi_status)
1583 {
1584 /* tdma and coex table */
1585 btc8821a1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, true, 5);
1586
1587 if (BT_8821A_1ANT_WIFI_STATUS_NON_CONNECTED_ASSO_AUTH_SCAN ==
1588 wifi_status)
1589 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
1590 else
1591 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
1592 }
The issue here is that the code for both branches of the if-else statement is identical.
The if-else was introduced a year ago in this commit c6821613e653
I wonder if an argument should be changed in any of the calls to btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type?
What do you think?
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists