Pkshih [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

I check the size of object files before/after this patch, and
the original one is smaller.

   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  16781    3392       1   20174    4ece core-0.o  // original
  16819    3392       1   20212    4ef4 core-1.o  // after this patch

Do you think it is worth to apply this patch?

I think that we should apply the patch. Even though the compiler _may_
reorder the code, it might choose not to do that.

Understand.

I have another way to fix this coverity warning, like:

@@ -1617,7 +1617,7 @@ static bool rtw89_core_txq_agg_wait(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
 {
        struct rtw89_txq *rtwtxq = (struct rtw89_txq *)txq->drv_priv;
        struct ieee80211_sta *sta = txq->sta;
-       struct rtw89_sta *rtwsta = (struct rtw89_sta *)sta->drv_priv;
+       struct rtw89_sta *rtwsta = sta ? (struct rtw89_sta *)sta->drv_priv : NULL;

        if (!sta || rtwsta->max_agg_wait <= 0)
                return false;

Is this acceptable?
It has a little redundant checking of 'sta', but the code looks clean.

I feel that Colin's fix is more readable, but this is just matter of
taste. You can choose.

I would like my version. 

There are three similar warnings reported by smatch, so I will fix them by
myself. Please drop this patch.

Ok, dropped.

But, still thank Colin to point out this issue.

Indeed, thanks Colin. A good way to thank is to add Reported-by to the
commit log.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches