Re: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k_hw: precedence bug in ath9k_hw_set_ofdm_nil()

[Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2012-04-10 11:04 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This was introduced in 54da20d83f "ath9k_hw: improve ANI processing and
> rx desensitizing parameters".  It triggers a Smatch complaint because
> the "if (!x != y) { ..." formation is a common precedence error.
> 
> In this case, maybe the code was intended to be as it is.  The
> "->ofdmWeakSigDetectOff" and "->ofdm_weak_signal_on" variables are both
> boolean.
> 
> Or perhaps based we could change the != to an == and remove the negate?
> 
> But normally when I see this formation it is a precedence bug so that's
> the patch I've sent.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ani.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ani.c
> index 47a9fb4..8304e27 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ani.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ani.c
> @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ static void ath9k_hw_set_ofdm_nil(struct ath_hw *ah, u8 immunityLevel)
>  				     entry_ofdm->fir_step_level);
>  
>  	if ((aniState->noiseFloor >= aniState->rssiThrHigh) &&
> -	    (!aniState->ofdmWeakSigDetectOff !=
> +	    (aniState->ofdmWeakSigDetectOff !=
Looking at other Atheros code, I think this patch is wrong, it should
be: aniState->ofdmWeakSigDetectOff == entry_ofdm->ofdm_weak_signal_on

While a bit confusing, the behavior of the original code was correct,
aniState->ofdmWeakSigDetectOff is used as a boolean.

This code badly needs a cleanup, the whole mess with *on vs *off
variables is quite confusing.

- Felix
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html