| Message ID | 20200310101356.182818-4-Jerome.Pouiller@silabs.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | staging: wfx: late fixes | expand |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:13:54AM +0100, Jerome Pouiller wrote: > From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com> > > 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. https://marc.info/?l=linux-driver-devel&m=158383526527951&w=2 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. https://www.designershumor.com/2019/09/30/you-will-read-this-first-meme/ 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 <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com> > --- > 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. regards, dan carpenter
On Thursday 12 March 2020 15:30:19 CET Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:13:54AM +0100, Jerome Pouiller wrote: [...] > 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. Indeed, my idea was the reviewers start by reading subjects and then read the body of the commit. I will care now. > > Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com> > > --- > > 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. I saw cases where it happened and it seems harmless. In add, this code is going to be released with 5.6. So, the WARN have to be removed. However, I think it is not normal. Even if it is harmless, it is the symptom of something unclean. So, I think that dev_warn() is the correct level of notification. (I should have included that in the commit log)
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); // FIXME: see note in wfx_sta_add() if (vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION) return 0;