Return-path: Received: from lekensteyn.nl ([178.21.112.251]:37259 "EHLO lekensteyn.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753278AbaFHJ1H (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jun 2014 05:27:07 -0400 From: Peter Wu To: Larry Finger Cc: Rickard Strandqvist , Chaoming Li , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Network Development , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: rtlwifi: rtl8192de: hw.c: Cleaning up conjunction always evaluates to false Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 11:26:50 +0200 Message-ID: <1436639.AmJiDmeQZF@al> (sfid-20140608_112731_858227_7081D7F0) In-Reply-To: <5393A7D0.2080700@lwfinger.net> References: <1402151419-18296-1-git-send-email-rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se> <5393A7D0.2080700@lwfinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Saturday 07 June 2014 19:01:20 Larry Finger wrote: > 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) That only happens to be case because MSR_INFRA | MSR_ADHOC == MSR_AP. This seems to be the intent: #define MSR_MASK 0x03 if ((bt_msr & MSR_MASK) == MSR_AP) In rtl8192se, there are also MSR_LINK_... constants covering MSR_... and in addition, there is a MSR_LINK_MASK. These macros are quite redundant though given the other definitions, but the mask is still nice to have I guess. Also, personally I would submit just one patch touching all drivers, but I see that Rickard has submitted a bunch of patches (without cover letter either, making it more difficult to group them). What would you prefer, a single patch touching multiple drivers (as the changes are mostly the same) or split patches? Kind regards, Peter