Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath9k: remove unnecessary code
Quoting Kalle Valo : "Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: Hi Kalle, Quoting Kalle Valo : "Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. So this test will always evaluate as true. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1364903 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c index fb80ec8..5c3bc28 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ bool ath9k_hw_nvram_read(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 off, u16 *data) if (ah->eeprom_blob) ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_firmware(ah->eeprom_blob, off, data); - else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom && pdata->eeprom_data) + else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom) ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_pdata(pdata, off, data); else ret = common->bus_ops->eeprom_read(common, off, data); The patch may very well be valid (didn't check yet) but the commit log is gibberish for me. Let me correct that and I'll send the patch again. Thanks. Also no need to have that long "net: wireless: ath:" prefix, "ath9k: " or "ath10k: " is enough. I get it. Thanks! -- Gustavo A. R. Silva
Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath9k: remove unnecessary code
Hi Kalle, Quoting Kalle Valo : "Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. So this test will always evaluate as true. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1364903 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c index fb80ec8..5c3bc28 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ bool ath9k_hw_nvram_read(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 off, u16 *data) if (ah->eeprom_blob) ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_firmware(ah->eeprom_blob, off, data); - else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom && pdata->eeprom_data) + else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom) ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_pdata(pdata, off, data); else ret = common->bus_ops->eeprom_read(common, off, data); The patch may very well be valid (didn't check yet) but the commit log is gibberish for me. Let me correct that and I'll send the patch again. Thanks! -- Gustavo A. R. Silva
Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath9k: remove unnecessary code
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: > Hi Kalle, > > Quoting Kalle Valo : > >> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: >> >>> The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. >>> So this test will always evaluate as true. >>> >>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1364903 >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva >>> --- >>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c >>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c >>> index fb80ec8..5c3bc28 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c >>> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ bool ath9k_hw_nvram_read(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 >>> off, u16 *data) >>> >>> if (ah->eeprom_blob) >>> ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_firmware(ah->eeprom_blob, off, data); >>> - else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom && pdata->eeprom_data) >>> + else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom) >>> ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_pdata(pdata, off, data); >>> else >>> ret = common->bus_ops->eeprom_read(common, off, data); >> >> The patch may very well be valid (didn't check yet) but the commit log >> is gibberish for me. >> > > Let me correct that and I'll send the patch again. Thanks. Also no need to have that long "net: wireless: ath:" prefix, "ath9k: " or "ath10k: " is enough. -- Kalle Valo
Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath9k: remove unnecessary code
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: > The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. > So this test will always evaluate as true. > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1364903 > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva > --- > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c > b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c > index fb80ec8..5c3bc28 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c > @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ bool ath9k_hw_nvram_read(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 off, u16 > *data) > > if (ah->eeprom_blob) > ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_firmware(ah->eeprom_blob, off, data); > - else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom && pdata->eeprom_data) > + else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom) > ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_pdata(pdata, off, data); > else > ret = common->bus_ops->eeprom_read(common, off, data); The patch may very well be valid (didn't check yet) but the commit log is gibberish for me. -- Kalle Valo
[PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath9k: remove unnecessary code
The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. So this test will always evaluate as true. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1364903 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c index fb80ec8..5c3bc28 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ bool ath9k_hw_nvram_read(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 off, u16 *data) if (ah->eeprom_blob) ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_firmware(ah->eeprom_blob, off, data); - else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom && pdata->eeprom_data) + else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom) ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_pdata(pdata, off, data); else ret = common->bus_ops->eeprom_read(common, off, data); -- 2.5.0