On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:34:35AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 16:20 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 07:03:13PM +0000, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > New Revision: 250609 > > > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/250609 > > > > > > Log: > > > Since the node state is 100% back under the TX lock, just kill > > > the use > > > of atomics. > > > > > > Modified: > > > head/sys/dev/ath/if_ath.c > > > > > > @@ -6140,13 +6133,13 @@ ath_tx_update_tim(struct ath_softc *sc, > > > /* > > > * Don't bother grabbing the lock unless the queue is > > > empty. > > > */ > > > - if (atomic_load_acq_int(&an->an_swq_depth) != 0) > > > + if (&an->an_swq_depth != 0) > > > return; > > > > > > if (an->an_is_powersave && > > > an->an_stack_psq == 0 && > > > an->an_tim_set == 1 && > > > - atomic_load_acq_int(&an->an_swq_depth) == 0) { > > > + an->an_swq_depth == 0) { > > > > PVS Studio complains here: warning: V560 A part of conditional > > expression > > is always true: an->an_swq_depth == 0. Which probably makes sense > > since > > you return earlier if it's != 0. > > You're replying to a six year old commit?
Yeah, anything wrong with it? > It doesn't check earlier whether that value is 0, it checks whether the > address of that value is 0. That's probably a bug. No, the & is a vestige from the atomic_* conversion, it is not present in current code. The check is still there, however. ./danfe _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
