Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192e: Use min_t/max_t macros for variable comparison

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:24:15AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c
> > @@ -587,17 +587,12 @@ void HTOnAssocRsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee)
> >  			else
> >  				pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_64K;
> >  		} else {
> > -			if (pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor < HT_AGG_SIZE_32K)
> > -				pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor =
> > -						 pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor;
> > -			else
> > -				pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = HT_AGG_SIZE_32K;
> > +			pHTInfo->CurrentAMPDUFactor = min_t(u32, pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor,
> > +							    HT_AGG_SIZE_32K);
> 
> For min() to fail there must be a signed v unsigned mismatch.
> Maybe that ought to be fixed.
> 

u32 is the right choice here.

I'm having a hard time understanding your email.  You might be saying
we could declare HT_AGG_SIZE_32K as a u32 so then we could use min()
instead of min_t()?  HT_AGG_SIZE_32K is an enum.

pPeerHTCap->MaxRxAMPDUFactor is a bitfield.

	u8 MaxRxAMPDUFactor:2;

We will never be able to use min().

> >  		}
> >  	}
> > -	if (pHTInfo->MPDU_Density > pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity)
> > -		pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pHTInfo->MPDU_Density;
> > -	else
> > -		pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity;
> > +	pHTInfo->current_mpdu_density = max_t(u8, pHTInfo->MPDU_Density,
> > +					      pPeerHTCap->MPDUDensity);
> 
> Using u8 with max_t() really doesn't make any sense.

Using u8 looks wrong because you would worry that one of the types is
larger than U8_MAX.  But it's actually fine.  The types are u8 vs another
bitfield.  I would probably have gone with u32 here as well.

> The value will get promoted to signed int prior to the comparison.
> 

That's sort of true-ish but I don't understand what you are saying?
#confused

regards,
dan carpenter