Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] staging: r8188eu: convert DBG_88E calls in core/rtw_sta_mgt.c

[Pavel Skripkin]

Hi Phillip,

On 1/10/22 12:00, Phillip Potter wrote:
> Convert the DBG_88E macro calls in core/rtw_sta_mgt.c to use pr_debug,
> as their information may be useful to observers, and this gets the
> driver closer to the point of being able to remove DBG_88E itself.
>
> These calls are at points in the call chain where use of dev_dbg or
> netdev_dbg isn't possible due to lack of device pointer, so plain
> pr_debug is appropriate here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Phillip Potter <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_sta_mgt.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_sta_mgt.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_sta_mgt.c
> index 54561ff239a0..de5406a5870c 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_sta_mgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_sta_mgt.c
> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ inline int rtw_stainfo_offset(struct sta_priv *stapriv, struct sta_info *sta)
>   	int offset = (((u8 *)sta) - stapriv->pstainfo_buf) / sizeof(struct sta_info);
>   
>   	if (!stainfo_offset_valid(offset))
> -		DBG_88E("%s invalid offset(%d), out of range!!!", __func__, offset);
> +		pr_debug("invalid offset(%d), out of range!!!", offset);
>   
>   	return offset;
>   }

There is only one caller of this function and it also checks if offset 
is valid. I think, this check with debug message can be removed from 
this function.

> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ inline int rtw_stainfo_offset(struct sta_priv *stapriv, struct sta_info *sta)
>   inline struct sta_info *rtw_get_stainfo_by_offset(struct sta_priv *stapriv, int offset)
>   {
>   	if (!stainfo_offset_valid(offset))
> -		DBG_88E("%s invalid offset(%d), out of range!!!", __func__, offset);
> +		pr_debug("invalid offset(%d), out of range!!!", offset);
>   
>   	return (struct sta_info *)(stapriv->pstainfo_buf + offset * sizeof(struct sta_info));
>   }

Is it safe to proceed with invalid offset? Debug message says it's out 
of range, so might be we should just return with an error?




With regards,
Pavel Skripkin