[RFC 13/14] ath10k: return error when ath10k_htt_rx_amsdu_pop() fail

[Michal Kazior]

On 4 March 2014 13:52, Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic at tieto.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic at tieto.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/htt_rx.c |   22 +++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/htt_rx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/htt_rx.c
> index 555aecf..e300a74 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/htt_rx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/htt_rx.c
> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static int ath10k_htt_rx_amsdu_pop(struct ath10k_htt *htt,
>
>         if (htt->rx_confused) {
>                 ath10k_warn("htt is confused. refusing rx\n");
> -               return 0;
> +               return -1;
>         }

Add a comment before function definition, please:

/* return: <0 fatal error, >=0 success, >0 number of chained msdus */

(this includes return-value logic Ben's unchaining patch added..)


>
>         msdu = *head_msdu = ath10k_htt_rx_netbuf_pop(htt);
> @@ -442,6 +442,9 @@ static int ath10k_htt_rx_amsdu_pop(struct ath10k_htt *htt,
>         }
>         *tail_msdu = msdu;
>
> +       if (*head_msdu == NULL)
> +               msdu_chaining = -1;
> +
>         /*
>          * Don't refill the ring yet.
>          *
> @@ -1089,11 +1092,6 @@ static bool ath10k_htt_rx_amsdu_allowed(struct ath10k_htt *htt,
>                                         enum htt_rx_mpdu_status status,
>                                         bool channel_set)
>  {
> -       if (!head) {
> -               ath10k_warn("htt rx no data!\n");
> -               return false;
> -       }
> -
>         if (head->len == 0) {
>                 ath10k_dbg(ATH10K_DBG_HTT,
>                            "htt rx dropping due to zero-len\n");
> @@ -1209,8 +1207,14 @@ static void ath10k_htt_rx_handler(struct ath10k_htt *htt,
>                                                          &msdu_head,
>                                                          &msdu_tail);
>
> +                       if (msdu_chaining == -1) {

if (msdu_chaining < 0)

I think having `ret` makes more sense here now.


> +                               ath10k_warn("htt rx no data!\n");

"failed to pop amsdu from htt rx ring: %d", ret


> +                               ath10k_htt_rx_free_msdu_chain(msdu_head);
> +                               continue;
> +                       }
> +
>                         if (!ath10k_htt_rx_amsdu_allowed(htt, msdu_head,
> -                                                        !!msdu_chaining,
> +                                                        msdu_chaining > 0,
>                                                          status,
>                                                          channel_set)) {
>                                 ath10k_htt_rx_free_msdu_chain(msdu_head);
> @@ -1280,12 +1284,12 @@ static void ath10k_htt_rx_frag_handler(struct ath10k_htt *htt,
>
>         ath10k_dbg(ATH10K_DBG_HTT_DUMP, "htt rx frag ahead\n");
>
> -       if (!msdu_head) {
> +       if (msdu_chaining == -1) {

ret < 0


>                 ath10k_warn("htt rx frag no data\n");

"failed to .. : %d", ret


>                 return;
>         }
>
> -       if (msdu_chaining || msdu_head != msdu_tail) {
> +       if (msdu_chaining > 0 || msdu_head != msdu_tail) {
>                 ath10k_warn("aggregation with fragmentation?!\n");
>                 ath10k_htt_rx_free_msdu_chain(msdu_head);
>                 return;

Actually the 2 checks above can be squashed:

if (ret) {
  ath10k_warn("failed to pop amsdu from htt rx for fragmented rx: %d", ret)



Michał