[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/5] staging: wfx: make warning about pending frame less scary
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:13:54AM +0100, Jerome Pouiller wrote:
> From: Jérôme Pouiller <>
> Removing station while some traffic is in progress may happen.

You're doing this in every commit where you start the commit message in
the subject and then just keep writing. Take a look at your patch in
this URL. Try to find the subject.

The subject is far separated from the body of the commit message. I
normally read the patch first, then I read the commit message and I
don't read the subject at all. Or sometimes I only read the subject.

So it really helps me if the commit message restates the subject. The
truth is that I don't really even like the advice that Josh wrote in
the howto about patch descriptions. I normally start by explaining the
problem then how I solved it. But I try not to be a pedant, so long as
I can understand the problem and the patch that's fine. So how I would
write this commit message is:

The warning message about releasing a station while Tx is in
progress will trigger a stack trace, possibly a reboot depending
on the configuration, and a syzbot email. It's not necessarily
a big deal that transmission is still in process so let's make the
warning less scary.

> Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <>
> ---
> drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c
> index 03d0f224ffdb..010e13bcd33e 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c
> @@ -605,7 +605,9 @@ int wfx_sta_remove(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sta_priv->buffered); i++)
> - WARN(sta_priv->buffered[i], "release station while Tx is in progress");
> + if (sta_priv->buffered[i])
> + dev_warn(wvif->wdev->dev, "release station while %d pending frame on queue %d",
> + sta_priv->buffered[i], i);

Why print a warning message at all if this is a normal situation? Just
delete the whole thing.

dan carpenter

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-12 15:31    [W:0.089 / U:0.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site