Simplify code by using min_t and max_t helper macros in place of lengthy
if/else block oriented logical evaluation and value assignment. This
issue is identified by coccicheck using the minmax.cocci file.
Use the *_t variants of min/max macros to avoid compiler warnings about
data typecast.
Also, use u32 as type for min_t macro to avoid any truncation of data
associated with enum constant HT_AGG_SIZE_32K.
Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c | 13 ++++---------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
index 62aa8e893c34..ccb86660ab48 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
@@ -587,17 +587,12 @@ void HTOnAssocRsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee)
else
pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_64K;
} else {
- if (pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor < HT_AGG_SIZE_32K)
- pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor =
- pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor;
- else
- pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_32K;
+ pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = min_t(u32, pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor,
+ HT_AGG_SIZE_32K);
}
}
- if (pHTInfo->MPDU_Density > pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity)
- pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pHTInfo->MPDU_Density;
- else
- pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity;
+ pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = max_t(u8, pHTInfo->MPDU_Density,
+ pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity);
if (pHTInfo->iot_action & HT_IOT_ACT_TX_USE_AMSDU_8K) {
pHTInfo->bCurrentAMPDUEnable = false;
pHTInfo->ForcedAMSDUMode = HT_AGG_FORCE_ENABLE;
--
2.34.1
From: Deepak R Varma
> Sent: 02 November 2022 22:37
>
> Simplify code by using min_t and max_t helper macros in place of lengthy
> if/else block oriented logical evaluation and value assignment. This
> issue is identified by coccicheck using the minmax.cocci file.
>
> Use the *_t variants of min/max macros to avoid compiler warnings about
> data typecast.
> Also, use u32 as type for min_t macro to avoid any truncation of data
> associated with enum constant HT_AGG_SIZE_32K.
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c | 13 ++++---------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> index 62aa8e893c34..ccb86660ab48 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> @@ -587,17 +587,12 @@ void HTOnAssocRsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee)
> else
> pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_64K;
> } else {
> - if (pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor < HT_AGG_SIZE_32K)
> - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor =
> - pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor;
> - else
> - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_32K;
> + pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = min_t(u32, pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor,
> + HT_AGG_SIZE_32K);
For min() to fail there must be a signed v unsigned mismatch.
Maybe that ought to be fixed.
> }
> }
> - if (pHTInfo->MPDU_Density > pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity)
> - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pHTInfo->MPDU_Density;
> - else
> - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity;
> + pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = max_t(u8, pHTInfo->MPDU_Density,
> + pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity);
Using u8 with max_t() really doesn't make any sense.
The value will get promoted to signed int prior to the comparison.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:24:15AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > @@ -587,17 +587,12 @@ void HTOnAssocRsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee)
> > else
> > pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_64K;
> > } else {
> > - if (pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor < HT_AGG_SIZE_32K)
> > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor =
> > - pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor;
> > - else
> > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_32K;
> > + pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = min_t(u32, pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor,
> > + HT_AGG_SIZE_32K);
>
> For min() to fail there must be a signed v unsigned mismatch.
> Maybe that ought to be fixed.
>
u32 is the right choice here.
I'm having a hard time understanding your email. You might be saying
we could declare HT_AGG_SIZE_32K as a u32 so then we could use min()
instead of min_t()? HT_AGG_SIZE_32K is an enum.
pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor is a bitfield.
u8 MaxRxAMPDUFactor:2;
We will never be able to use min().
> > }
> > }
> > - if (pHTInfo->MPDU_Density > pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity)
> > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pHTInfo->MPDU_Density;
> > - else
> > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity;
> > + pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = max_t(u8, pHTInfo->MPDU_Density,
> > + pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity);
>
> Using u8 with max_t() really doesn't make any sense.
Using u8 looks wrong because you would worry that one of the types is
larger than U8_MAX. But it's actually fine. The types are u8 vs another
bitfield. I would probably have gone with u32 here as well.
> The value will get promoted to signed int prior to the comparison.
>
That's sort of true-ish but I don't understand what you are saying?
#confused
regards,
dan carpenter
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:53:45AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:24:15AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > > @@ -587,17 +587,12 @@ void HTOnAssocRsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee)
> > > else
> > > pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_64K;
> > > } else {
> > > - if (pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor < HT_AGG_SIZE_32K)
> > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor =
> > > - pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor;
> > > - else
> > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_32K;
> > > + pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = min_t(u32, pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor,
> > > + HT_AGG_SIZE_32K);
> >
> > For min() to fail there must be a signed v unsigned mismatch.
> > Maybe that ought to be fixed.
> >
>
> u32 is the right choice here.
>
> I'm having a hard time understanding your email. You might be saying
> we could declare HT_AGG_SIZE_32K as a u32 so then we could use min()
> instead of min_t()? HT_AGG_SIZE_32K is an enum.
>
> pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor is a bitfield.
>
> u8 MaxRxAMPDUFactor:2;
>
> We will never be able to use min().
I think we could do min((u32)a, (u32)b), but it is just unwrapped min_t
if I understand David's comment.
>
> > > }
> > > }
> > > - if (pHTInfo->MPDU_Density > pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity)
> > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pHTInfo->MPDU_Density;
> > > - else
> > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity;
> > > + pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = max_t(u8, pHTInfo->MPDU_Density,
> > > + pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity);
> >
> > Using u8 with max_t() really doesn't make any sense.
>
> Using u8 looks wrong because you would worry that one of the types is
> larger than U8_MAX. But it's actually fine. The types are u8 vs another
> bitfield. I would probably have gone with u32 here as well.
I will take your advise and upgrade the type to u32 as a revision.
>
> > The value will get promoted to signed int prior to the comparison.
> >
>
> That's sort of true-ish but I don't understand what you are saying?
> #confused
Yes, I too did not understand David's comment. I tried to dig dipper into max_t but
it gets very complex. Can you please elaborate how you determined the promotion
to signed int?
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 02:48:35PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:53:45AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:24:15AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > > > @@ -587,17 +587,12 @@ void HTOnAssocRsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee)
> > > > else
> > > > pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_64K;
> > > > } else {
> > > > - if (pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor < HT_AGG_SIZE_32K)
> > > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor =
> > > > - pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor;
> > > > - else
> > > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_32K;
> > > > + pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = min_t(u32, pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor,
> > > > + HT_AGG_SIZE_32K);
> > >
> > > For min() to fail there must be a signed v unsigned mismatch.
> > > Maybe that ought to be fixed.
> > >
> >
> > u32 is the right choice here.
> >
> > I'm having a hard time understanding your email. You might be saying
> > we could declare HT_AGG_SIZE_32K as a u32 so then we could use min()
> > instead of min_t()? HT_AGG_SIZE_32K is an enum.
> >
> > pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor is a bitfield.
> >
> > u8 MaxRxAMPDUFactor:2;
> >
> > We will never be able to use min().
>
> I think we could do min((u32)a, (u32)b), but it is just unwrapped min_t
> if I understand David's comment.
>
No. Do not do that. I think it's a checkpatch warning. What you have
is fine.
> >
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > - if (pHTInfo->MPDU_Density > pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity)
> > > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pHTInfo->MPDU_Density;
> > > > - else
> > > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity;
> > > > + pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = max_t(u8, pHTInfo->MPDU_Density,
> > > > + pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity);
> > >
> > > Using u8 with max_t() really doesn't make any sense.
> >
> > Using u8 looks wrong because you would worry that one of the types is
> > larger than U8_MAX. But it's actually fine. The types are u8 vs another
> > bitfield. I would probably have gone with u32 here as well.
> I will take your advise and upgrade the type to u32 as a revision.
Sounds good. It's not something I would have asked you to redo the
patch over, but it would have been my personal preference.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 01:09:20PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 02:48:35PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:53:45AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:24:15AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > > > > @@ -587,17 +587,12 @@ void HTOnAssocRsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee)
> > > > > else
> > > > > pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_64K;
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > - if (pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor < HT_AGG_SIZE_32K)
> > > > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor =
> > > > > - pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor;
> > > > > - else
> > > > > - pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_32K;
> > > > > + pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = min_t(u32, pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor,
> > > > > + HT_AGG_SIZE_32K);
> > > >
> > > > For min() to fail there must be a signed v unsigned mismatch.
> > > > Maybe that ought to be fixed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > u32 is the right choice here.
> > >
> > > I'm having a hard time understanding your email. You might be saying
> > > we could declare HT_AGG_SIZE_32K as a u32 so then we could use min()
> > > instead of min_t()? HT_AGG_SIZE_32K is an enum.
> > >
> > > pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor is a bitfield.
> > >
> > > u8 MaxRxAMPDUFactor:2;
> > >
> > > We will never be able to use min().
> >
> > I think we could do min((u32)a, (u32)b), but it is just unwrapped min_t
> > if I understand David's comment.
> >
>
> No. Do not do that. I think it's a checkpatch warning. What you have
> is fine.
>
> > >
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > > - if (pHTInfo->MPDU_Density > pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity)
> > > > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pHTInfo->MPDU_Density;
> > > > > - else
> > > > > - pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity;
> > > > > + pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = max_t(u8, pHTInfo->MPDU_Density,
> > > > > + pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity);
> > > >
> > > > Using u8 with max_t() really doesn't make any sense.
> > >
> > > Using u8 looks wrong because you would worry that one of the types is
> > > larger than U8_MAX. But it's actually fine. The types are u8 vs another
> > > bitfield. I would probably have gone with u32 here as well.
> > I will take your advise and upgrade the type to u32 as a revision.
>
> Sounds good. It's not something I would have asked you to redo the
> patch over, but it would have been my personal preference.
That is no problem. I am waiting on David to elaborate on his feedback and
accordingly plan a consolidated revision.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>