lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net: wireless: rtlwifi: rtl8192de: hw.c: Cleaning up conjunction always evaluates to false
On 06/07/2014 10:24 AM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Yes, 0x3 was one of the most likely :)
> But wanted someone who knows the code better would be heard.
> All agreed? Then I do a new patch.
>
> Looks like it is the same error in the files below, I'll fix them all them to.
>
> rtl8192cu/hw.c:1363: if ((bt_msr & 0xfc) == MSR_AP)
> rtl8192ce/hw.c:1209: if ((bt_msr & 0xfc) == MSR_AP)
> rtl8188ee/hw.c:1234: if ((bt_msr & 0xfc) == MSR_AP)
> rtl8192de/hw.c:1131: if ((bt_msr & 0xfc) == MSR_AP)
>
>
> Best regards
> Rickard Strandqvist
>
>
> 2014-06-07 17:02 GMT+02:00 Peter Wu <peter@lekensteyn.nl>:
>> On Saturday 07 June 2014 16:30:19 Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
>>> Expression '(X & 0xfc) == 0x3' is always false
>>
>> While this is true, I believe that some other mistake is made.
>>
>>> I chose to remove this code, because it will not make any difference.
>>> But obviously it is rather a properly designed if statement that is needed.
>>>
>>> This was partly found using a static code analysis program called cppcheck.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c | 5 +----
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c
>>> index 2b08671..a1520d5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c
>>> @@ -1128,10 +1128,7 @@ static int _rtl92de_set_media_status(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
>>> }
>>> rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_CR + 2, bt_msr);
>>> rtlpriv->cfg->ops->led_control(hw, ledaction);
>>> - if ((bt_msr & 0xfc) == MSR_AP)
>>
>> If you look a few lines up, then you see that bt_msr is OR-ed with MSR_AP
>> for AP interfaces. The 0xfc should be 0x03, see other drivers for example:
>>
>> rtl8723ae/hw.c:1112: if ((bt_msr & 0x03) == MSR_AP)
>> rtl8723be/hw.c:1200: if ((bt_msr & 0x03) == MSR_AP)
>> rtl8192cu/hw.c:1363: if ((bt_msr & 0xfc) == MSR_AP)
>> rtl8192ce/hw.c:1209: if ((bt_msr & 0xfc) == MSR_AP)
>> rtl8188ee/hw.c:1234: if ((bt_msr & 0xfc) == MSR_AP)
>> rtl8192de/hw.c:1131: if ((bt_msr & 0xfc) == MSR_AP)
>>
>>> - rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_BCNTCFG + 1, 0x00);
>>> - else
>>> - rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_BCNTCFG + 1, 0x66);
>>> + rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_BCNTCFG + 1, 0x66);
>>> return 0;
>>> }

Peter,

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)

Larry



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-08 02:21    [W:0.068 / U:0.936 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site