Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-1612-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, lilinmao <lilinmao@kylinos.cn>
CC: =?Windows-1252?Q?linux-wireless=40vger=2Ekern=85?=
	<linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] wifi: rtw89: 8852b: fix cppcheck issues
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] wifi: rtw89: 8852b: fix cppcheck issues
Thread-Index: AQHaP8RbPkhvE92icEK7ZcmuR2v5v7DPfZEcgACQP2iAAN6l0A==
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 04:48:10 +0000
Message-ID: <18e771f73c91428e8446f18319f316f5@realtek.com>
References: <20240105104542.463834-1-lilinmao@kylinos.cn>
	<1704693852309064.667.seg@mailgw>
	<077A3848-0696-4DCC-99C3-DB5389EA2EA2@kylinos.cn> <87jzojetms.fsf@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87jzojetms.fsf@kernel.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-TW
Content-Language: zh-TW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 11:24 PM
> To: lilinmao <lilinmao@kylinos.cn>
> Cc: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>; linux-wireless@vger.kern=85 <linux=
-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: rtw89: 8852b: fix cppcheck issues
>=20
> lilinmao <lilinmao@kylinos.cn> writes:
>=20
> > I'm very sorry for the various issues encountered during my first patch=
 submission.
> >
> > My patch didn't change the original logic of the code.Perhaps I just ch=
anged the way
> > of writing the code to avoid the cppcheck issue.

Yes. I think you didn't change the logic, so explain this and what you made
in commit message as Johannes mentioned.=20

> >
> >>The original logic looks like
> >>
> >>bool found =3D false;
> >>
> >>for (idx =3D 0; idx < RTW89_IQK_CHS_NR; idx++)
> >>if (expr) {
> >>found =3D true;
> >>break;
> >>}
> >>
> >>if (!found) {
> >>... [A]
> >>}
> >
> > After the 'for' loop ends, 'if (idx > RTW89_IQK_CHS_NR - 1)' is
> > equivalent to 'if (!found).=20

I prefer 'if (idx >=3D RTW89_IQK_CHS_NR)'

> > Cppcheck might not have detected the
> > changes to 'idx' within branch [A] which leads it to believe later
> > that 'idx' could be greater than or equal to 'RTW89_IQK_CHS_NR'.

So, can you refine cppcheck?=20

>=20
> Our lists drop all html mail, so please use text/plain format and don't
> top post. More info in the wiki link below.
>=20

Thank you, Kalle. With your reformatting, I can simply reply this. :-)