diff mbox series

iwlwifi: work around -Wenum-compare-conditional warning

Message ID 20241018151841.3821671-1-arnd@kernel.org
State New
Headers show
Series iwlwifi: work around -Wenum-compare-conditional warning | expand

Commit Message

Arnd Bergmann Oct. 18, 2024, 3:18 p.m. UTC 
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

This is one of only three -Wenum-compare-conditional warnings we get
in randconfig builds:

drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c:4331:17: error: conditional expression between different enumeration types ('enum iwl_fw_sta_type' and 'enum iwl_sta_type') [-Werror,-Wenum-compare-conditional]
 4331 |         u32 type = mld ? STATION_TYPE_PEER : IWL_STA_LINK;
      |                        ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a false positive since the code works as intended, but the
warning is otherwise sensible, so slightly rewrite it in order to
not trigger the warning.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
I also tried a more complex approach of splitting the function into
two separate ones, since the 'mld' behavior is already quite different
from the other path. The version I post here ended up looking simpler
to me, but I can also send the other one if the maintainers prefer.
---
 drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Kalle Valo Oct. 21, 2024, 7:30 a.m. UTC | #1 
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024, at 16:06, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
>>
>>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>>
>>> This is one of only three -Wenum-compare-conditional warnings we get
>>> in randconfig builds:
>>>
>>> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c:4331:17: error: conditional expression between different enumeration types ('enum iwl_fw_sta_type' and 'enum iwl_sta_type') [-Werror,-Wenum-compare-conditional]
>>>  4331 |         u32 type = mld ? STATION_TYPE_PEER : IWL_STA_LINK;
>>>       |                        ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> This is a false positive since the code works as intended, but the
>>> warning is otherwise sensible, so slightly rewrite it in order to
>>> not trigger the warning.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>
>> Is this and the other rtw89 patch for current release or -next?
>
> Up to you, the warning has existed for a long time at W=1
> level, so the patch applies to current and stable kernels
> as well, but it's not a regression or particularly important.

Ok, I guess -next is more approriate then.

> It would be nice to turn on the warning by default in 6.13
> once the three patches I sent get applied.

It's not certain if driver specific trees make it to v6.13 so should the
patches applied directly to wireless-next?
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c
index b6c99cd6d9e5..9d05c344d967 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c
@@ -4328,7 +4328,10 @@  int iwl_mvm_add_pasn_sta(struct iwl_mvm *mvm, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
 	unsigned int wdg_timeout =
 		iwl_mvm_get_wd_timeout(mvm, vif);
 	bool mld = iwl_mvm_has_mld_api(mvm->fw);
-	u32 type = mld ? STATION_TYPE_PEER : IWL_STA_LINK;
+	u32 type = IWL_STA_LINK;
+
+	if (mld)
+		type = STATION_TYPE_PEER;
 
 	ret = iwl_mvm_allocate_int_sta(mvm, sta, 0,
 				       NL80211_IFTYPE_UNSPECIFIED, type);