Fix the following sparse warning in mwifiex_cmd_append_11n_tlv:
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:358:65: warning: invalid assignment: &=
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:358:65: left side has type restricted __le16
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:358:65: right side has type int
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:360:65: warning: invalid assignment: &=
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:360:65: left side has type restricted __le16
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:360:65: right side has type int
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:366:65: warning: invalid assignment: &=
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:366:65: left side has type restricted __le16
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:366:65: right side has type int
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:368:65: warning: invalid assignment: &=
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:368:65: left side has type restricted __le16
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:368:65: right side has type int
Fixes: 77423fa739 ("mwifiex: fix incorrect ht capability problem")
Signed-off-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40PLUS and IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40PLUS channel
flags tell if HT40 operation is allowed on a channel or not.
This patch ensures ht_capability information is modified
accordingly so that we don't end up creating a HT40 connection
when it's not allowed for current regulatory domain.
Signed-off-by: Cathy Luo <cluo@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
There's absolutely no reason to check to see if a list is empty
before iterating through it. It's just like writing code like
this:
if (count != 0) {
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
...
}
}
The loop will already be avoided if "count == 0" so there was no
reason to check.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
uninitilized variable, such as .add_req_result might be magic stack
value. Initialize the structure to make it clean.
Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Cathy Luo <cluo@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
The mwifiex_11n_delba() function walked the rx_reorder_tbl_ptr without
holding the lock, which was an obvious violation.
Grab the lock.
NOTE: we hold the lock while calling mwifiex_send_delba(). There's also
several callers in 11n_rxreorder.c that hold the lock and the comments
in the struct sound just like very other list/lock pair -- as if the
lock should definitely be help for all operations like this.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Despite the macro list_for_each_entry_safe() having the word "safe" in
the name, it's still not actually safe to release the list spinlock
while iterating over the list. The "safe" in the macro name actually
only means that it's safe to delete the current entry while iterating
over the list.
Releasing the spinlock while iterating over the list means that someone
else could come in and adjust the list while we don't have the
spinlock. If they do that it can totally mix up our iteration and fully
corrupt the list. Later iterating over a corrupted list while holding a
spinlock and having IRQs off can cause all sorts of hard to debug
problems.
As evidenced by the other call to
mwifiex_11n_delete_tx_ba_stream_tbl_entry() in
mwifiex_11n_delete_all_tx_ba_stream_tbl(), it's actually safe to skip
the spinlock release. Let's do that.
No known problems are fixed by this patch, but it could fix all sorts of
weird problems and it should be very safe.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
