Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 0C63DC43383
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To:     Sven Eckelmann <sven@narfation.org>
Cc:     ath11k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND V2 3/4] ath11k: switch to using ieee80211_tx_status_ext()
References: <20200204151135.25302-1-john@phrozen.org>
        <20200204151135.25302-3-john@phrozen.org>
        <87h7zxxob7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
        <4744821.iAptAJfnkX@bentobox>
Date:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:55:07 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4744821.iAptAJfnkX@bentobox> (Sven Eckelmann's message of "Tue,
        11 Feb 2020 15:38:22 +0100")
Message-ID: <87wo8r7qck.fsf@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Sven Eckelmann <sven@narfation.org> writes:

> On Tuesday, 11 February 2020 14:10:04 CET Kalle Valo wrote:
> [...]
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp_tx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp_tx.c
>> > index 7b532bf9acd8..66a6cfd54ad9 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp_tx.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp_tx.c
>> > @@ -357,9 +357,12 @@ static void ath11k_dp_tx_complete_msdu(struct ath11k *ar,
>> >  				       struct sk_buff *msdu,
>> >  				       struct hal_tx_status *ts)
>> >  {
>> > +	struct ieee80211_tx_status status = { 0 };
>> 
>> This adds a sparse warning:
>> 
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp_tx.c:350:47: warning: Using plain
>> integer as NULL pointer
>> 
>> Seems like a false warning, no? But not sure how to shut up the warning,
>> using '{ NULL }' would do that but just feels wrong. Any opinions?
>
> Why is this a false warning? The structure is following:
>
>     struct ieee80211_tx_status {
>     	struct ieee80211_sta *sta;
>     	struct ieee80211_tx_info *info;
>     	struct sk_buff *skb;
>     	struct rate_info *rate;
>     };
>
> And this is a pre-C99 initializer. The equal C99-Initializer would be
>
>     struct ieee80211_tx_status status = {
>     	.sta = NULL,
> 	};
>
> So it is initializing status.sta with 0. But status.sta is a pointer
> and we should use NULL for pointers instead of plain 0. If you want
> to initialize the object on stack to zero but not initialize each 
> member then just use {}.

Ah, of course. Thanks for pointing this out.

-- 
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches