Re: [PATCH v4] staging: rtl8723bs: Use % 4096u instead of & 0xfff
David Laight <[email protected]> Mon, 7 Apr 2025 13:21:15 +0100
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.outreachy,dev.linux.lists.linux-staging,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20250407132115.11ded3d9@pumpkin> |
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 08:53:30 +0200 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 08:36:35AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 06:30:50AM +0000, Abraham Samuel Adekunle wrote: > > > The sequence number is constrained to a range of [0, 4095], which > > > is a total of 4096 values. The bitmask operation using `0xfff` is > > > used to perform this wrap-around. While this is functionally correct, > > > it obscures the intended semantic of a 4096-based wrap. > > > > > > Using a modulo operation with `4096u` makes the wrap-around logic > > > > <snip> > > > > > - psta->sta_xmitpriv.txseq_tid[pattrib->priority] &= 0xFFF; > > > + psta->sta_xmitpriv.txseq_tid[pattrib->priority] &= 4096u; > > > > I do not see a modulo operation here, only another & operation. > > > > > pattrib->seqnum = psta->sta_xmitpriv.txseq_tid[pattrib->priority]; > > > > > > SetSeqNum(hdr, pattrib->seqnum); > > > @@ -963,11 +963,11 @@ s32 rtw_make_wlanhdr(struct adapter *padapter, u8 *hdr, struct pkt_attrib *pattr > > > if (SN_LESS(pattrib->seqnum, tx_seq)) { > > > pattrib->ampdu_en = false;/* AGG BK */ > > > } else if (SN_EQUAL(pattrib->seqnum, tx_seq)) { > > > - psta->BA_starting_seqctrl[pattrib->priority & 0x0f] = (tx_seq+1)&0xfff; > > > + psta->BA_starting_seqctrl[pattrib->priority & 0x0f] = (tx_seq+1)&4096u; > > > > This also looks odd, nothing is being "AND" here, it's an address value > > being set (and an odd one at that, but that's another issue...) > > Sorry, no, I was wrong, it is being & here, but not %. My fault, > the lack of spaces here threw me. It is still wrong '& 0xfff' => '% 4096u'. But it is all rather pointless especially if you can't test it. Plausibly more useful would be to find ALL of the uses of 0xfff/4096 (I suspect there is an array lurking somewhere) and change them to use the same constant. But you need to be able to test the changes - or at least discover that they make absolutely no difference to the generated object code. David > > thanks, > > greg k-h