> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] rtw88: mac: remove dangerous while (1) > > <[email protected]> writes: > > > From: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <[email protected]> > > > > Not to use while (1) to parse power sequence commands in an array. > > Put the statement (when cmd is not NULL) instead to make the loop stop > > when the next fetched command is NULL. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c | 9 +++------ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c > b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c > > index 25a923b..7487b2e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac.c > > @@ -203,17 +203,14 @@ static int rtw_pwr_seq_parser(struct rtw_dev > *rtwdev, > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > - do { > > - cmd = cmd_seq[idx]; > > - if (!cmd) > > - break; > > - > > + while ((cmd = cmd_seq[idx])) { > > ret = rtw_sub_pwr_seq_parser(rtwdev, intf_mask, cut_mask, cmd); > > if (ret) > > return -EBUSY; > > > > + /* fetch next command */ > > idx++; > > - } while (1); > > + }; > > I dount see how this is any better, with a suitable bug you can still > have a neverending loop, right? I was thinking more something like this: > > count = 100; > do { > .... > } while (count--); > > That way the won't be more than 100 loops no matter how many bugs there > are :) Of course I have no idea what would be a good value for count. >
To make this totally safe, I think we need to re-write the power seq parsing code. I think I should drop this patch, and write a better code later. And also re-write the polling command, to remove the while (1). Yan-Hsuan
