On 9/26/19 2:31 AM, Denis Efremov wrote:
It's incorrect to compare HighestRate with 0x0b twice in the following manner "if (HighestRate > 0x0b) ... else if (HighestRate > 0x0b) ...". The "else if" branch is constantly false. The second comparision should be with 0x03 according to the max_rate_idx in ODM_RAInfo_Init().Cc: Larry Finger <larry.fin...@lwfinger.net> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Michael Straube <straube.li...@gmail.com> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov <efre...@linux.com> --- drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/hal8188e_rate_adaptive.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/hal8188e_rate_adaptive.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/hal8188e_rate_adaptive.c index 9ddd51685063..5792f491b59a 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/hal8188e_rate_adaptive.c +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/hal8188e_rate_adaptive.c @@ -409,7 +409,7 @@ static int odm_ARFBRefresh_8188E(struct odm_dm_struct *dm_odm, struct odm_ra_inf pRaInfo->PTModeSS = 3; else if (pRaInfo->HighestRate > 0x0b) pRaInfo->PTModeSS = 2; - else if (pRaInfo->HighestRate > 0x0b) + else if (pRaInfo->HighestRate > 0x03) pRaInfo->PTModeSS = 1; else pRaInfo->PTModeSS = 0;
I agree that the original code is wrong; however, I prefer that changes that alter the execution should be tested. I see no evidence that such testing has been done. It probably does not matter because a highest rate between 3 and 0xb means 802.11g is in use, and that may no longer be a real-world situation.
With any future patches, you need to indicate if testing has been done. Acked-by: Larry Finger <larry.fin...@lwfinger.net> Larry _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
