Skip to contentSkip to conversation

staging: rtl8192e: Fix comparison to NULL of variable rf_set_sens

PATCH In review Yogesh Hegde 2 participants 2 messages Apr 12, 2023 – Apr 15, 2023 Staging

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH v3 1/1 staging: rtl8192e: Fix comparison to NULL of variable rf_set_sens

Functions _rtl92e_wx_get_sens and _rtl92e_wx_set_sens depend on the function rf_set_sens, which is declared but never defined. Hence calling this function will cause an oops.
Because there is no definition of the function priv->rf_set_sens will always be NULL.

As a result _rtl92e_wx_set_sens and _rtl92e_wx_get_sens will always return -1.

Hence,
* Removed function definition rf_set_sens
* Removed usage of variable priv->rf_set_sens
* Removed functions _rtl92e_wx_get_sens and _rtl92e_wx_set_sens
* Cleaned up the variables sens and max_sens used in these functions

---
Changed in v3:
- Fixed description to fit within 75 chars
- Added suggested tags

as Suggested by: Philipp Hortmann <[email protected]>

Changed in v2:
- Removed function definition rf_set_sens
- Removed usage of variable priv->rf_set_sens
- Removed functions _rtl92e_wx_get_sens and _rtl92e_wx_set_sens
- Cleaned up the variables sens and max_sens used in these functions

---
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h |  3 --
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_wx.c   | 45 --------------------
 2 files changed, 48 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h +0 -3
index 2b2d8af4cf6e..a949a3833cca 100644
@@ -234,7 +234,6 @@ struct r8192_priv {
 	struct rt_stats stats;
 	struct iw_statistics			wstats;
 
-	short (*rf_set_sens)(struct net_device *dev, short sens);
 	u8 (*rf_set_chan)(struct net_device *dev, u8 ch);
 
 	struct rx_desc *rx_ring[MAX_RX_QUEUE];
@@ -274,8 +273,6 @@ struct r8192_priv {
 	short	promisc;
 
 	short	chan;
-	short	sens;
-	short	max_sens;
 	bool ps_force;
 
 	u32 irq_mask[2];
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_wx.c +0 -45

63 lines not on this page · raw message

Signature · 1 line
2.34.1
#1 lore raw
Quoted 3 lines · Yogesh Hegde

Functions _rtl92e_wx_get_sens and _rtl92e_wx_set_sens depend on the function rf_set_sens, which is declared but never defined. Hence calling this function will cause an oops.

So can an oops happen? I'm confused.

Quoted 2 lines

Because there is no definition of the function priv->rf_set_sens will always be NULL.

Ok, but is it used? I'm confused.

Quoted 3 lines

As a result _rtl92e_wx_set_sens and _rtl92e_wx_get_sens will always return -1.

So it does work? Or it doesn't? What about the oops?

Quoted 6 lines

Hence,
* Removed function definition rf_set_sens
* Removed usage of variable priv->rf_set_sens
* Removed functions _rtl92e_wx_get_sens and _rtl92e_wx_set_sens
* Cleaned up the variables sens and max_sens used in these functions

"Hence" is an odd way to write this.

And when you list things in a changelog, that usually means you want to have multiple patches, right?

Quoted 3 lines

No blank line between these please.

Quoted 100 lines

---
Changed in v3:
- Fixed description to fit within 75 chars
- Added suggested tags

as Suggested by: Philipp Hortmann <[email protected]>

Changed in v2:
- Removed function definition rf_set_sens
- Removed usage of variable priv->rf_set_sens
- Removed functions _rtl92e_wx_get_sens and _rtl92e_wx_set_sens
- Cleaned up the variables sens and max_sens used in these functions

---
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h |  3 --
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_wx.c   | 45 --------------------
 2 files changed, 48 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h +0 -3
index 2b2d8af4cf6e..a949a3833cca 100644
@@ -234,7 +234,6 @@ struct r8192_priv {
 	struct rt_stats stats;
 	struct iw_statistics			wstats;
 
-	short (*rf_set_sens)(struct net_device *dev, short sens);
 	u8 (*rf_set_chan)(struct net_device *dev, u8 ch);
 
 	struct rx_desc *rx_ring[MAX_RX_QUEUE];
@@ -274,8 +273,6 @@ struct r8192_priv {
 	short	promisc;
 
 	short	chan;
-	short	sens;
-	short	max_sens;
 	bool ps_force;
 
 	u32 irq_mask[2];
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_wx.c +0 -43
index cb28288a618b..0bb657fda06c 100644
@@ -311,10 +311,6 @@ static int _rtl92e_wx_get_range(struct net_device *dev,
 	/* ~130 Mb/s real (802.11n) */
 	range->throughput = 130 * 1000 * 1000;
 
-	if (priv->rf_set_sens != NULL)
-		/* signal level threshold range */
-		range->sensitivity = priv->max_sens;
-
 	range->max_qual.qual = 100;
 	range->max_qual.level = 0;
 	range->max_qual.noise = 0;
@@ -807,45 +803,6 @@ static int _rtl92e_wx_get_retry(struct net_device *dev,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int _rtl92e_wx_get_sens(struct net_device *dev,
-			       struct iw_request_info *info,
-			       union iwreq_data *wrqu, char *extra)
-{
-	struct r8192_priv *priv = rtllib_priv(dev);
-
-	if (priv->rf_set_sens == NULL)
-		return -1; /* we have not this support for this radio */
-	wrqu->sens.value = priv->sens;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static int _rtl92e_wx_set_sens(struct net_device *dev,
-			       struct iw_request_info *info,
-			       union iwreq_data *wrqu, char *extra)
-{
-	struct r8192_priv *priv = rtllib_priv(dev);
-
-	short err = 0;
-
-	if (priv->hw_radio_off)
-		return 0;
-
-	mutex_lock(&priv->wx_mutex);
-	if (priv->rf_set_sens == NULL) {
-		err = -1; /* we have not this support for this radio */
-		goto exit;
-	}
-	if (priv->rf_set_sens(dev, wrqu->sens.value) == 0)
-		priv->sens = wrqu->sens.value;
-	else
-		err = -EINVAL;
-
-exit:
-	mutex_unlock(&priv->wx_mutex);
-
-	return err;
-}
-
 static int _rtl92e_wx_set_encode_ext(struct net_device *dev,
 				     struct iw_request_info *info,
 				     union iwreq_data *wrqu, char *extra)

drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_wx.c static iw_handler r8192_wx_handlers[] = { · line 1070

Quoted 5 lines
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_wx.c +0 -2
@@ -1066,8 +1023,6 @@ static iw_handler r8192_wx_handlers[] = {
 	[IW_IOCTL(SIOCGIWFREQ)] = _rtl92e_wx_get_freq,
 	[IW_IOCTL(SIOCSIWMODE)] = _rtl92e_wx_set_mode,
 	[IW_IOCTL(SIOCGIWMODE)] = _rtl92e_wx_get_mode,
-	[IW_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSENS)] = _rtl92e_wx_set_sens,
-	[IW_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSENS)] = _rtl92e_wx_get_sens,

You are removing 2 ioctls, so at the minimum, this should be 2 different patches. Please make a patch series here and read up on how to write a bit better of a changelog text to make it more obvious what is happening here.

thanks,

greg k-h