netdev - Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi: dvm: excessive if in rs_bt_update

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <dbf90ac06b27395dc2d19fbc37e47877785b8d52.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:46:31 +0300
From:   Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
To:     Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
        Intel Linux Wireless <linuxwifi@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi: dvm: excessive if in rs_bt_update_lq()

On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 23:49 +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
> There is no need to check 'priv->bt_ant_couple_ok' twice in
> rs_bt_update_lq(). The second check is always true. Thus, the
> expression can be simplified.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c
> index 74229fcb63a9..226165db7dfd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c
> @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static void rs_bt_update_lq(struct iwl_priv *priv, struct iwl_rxon_context *ctx,
>  		 * Is there a need to switch between
>  		 * full concurrency and 3-wire?
>  		 */
> -		if (priv->bt_ci_compliance && priv->bt_ant_couple_ok)
> +		if (priv->bt_ci_compliance)
>  			full_concurrent = true;
>  		else
>  			full_concurrent = false;

Thanks, Denis! I have applied this to our internal tree and it will
reach the mainline following our usual upstreaming process.

--
Cheers,
Luca.