Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <7b27fa9f59bec600069bba9c2acd9f28dd753923.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] wifi: ath12k: fix undefined behavior with __fls in
 dp
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Harshitha Prem <quic_hprem@quicinc.com>, ath12k@lists.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 09 Aug 2023 14:18:08 +0200
In-Reply-To: <5cabcc57acd781e90c35fcc9b3c6a8aa8fbaa581.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <20230809042738.13394-1-quic_hprem@quicinc.com>
         <20230809042738.13394-3-quic_hprem@quicinc.com>
         <5cabcc57acd781e90c35fcc9b3c6a8aa8fbaa581.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2023-08-09 at 14:17 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-08-09 at 09:57 +0530, Harshitha Prem wrote:
> >=20
> > During the crash, the fragment id of that packet was 0 and
> > __fls returned a junk value. Hence, it was identified that "__fls"
> > would have an undefined behavior if the argument is passed as "0".
> > Therefore, add changes to handle the same.
>=20
> Umm. That makes it sound like you are surprised by this behaviour of
> __fls() and expected something else?! Please go read the documentation,
> and then rewrite the commit message. You really shouldn't be surprised
> by this.
>=20

Also, btw, "Fixes:" tags would be nice for fixes. I'm sure Kalle has
brought that up a million times before ;)

johannes