Dan Carpenter reported that smatch detected a potential
problem with the code [1]:
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/tx.c:1488 carl9170_op_tx()
  error: we previously assumed 'sta' could be null (see line 1482)

 drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/tx.c
  1482  if (sta) {
           ^^^^^ New check.
  [...]
  1485  }
  1487  if (info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_AMPDU) {
  1488    run = carl9170_tx_ampdu_queue(ar, sta, skb);
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Old dereference of "sta" inside the call to carl9170_tx_ampdu_queue().

A range of solutions have been discussed in [2] and
we agreed on the following: "
> we might as well add a comment to carl9170_tx_ampdu_queue
> and explain the situation [in a way that's obvious to a
> human reader]. This way we can save the "if"... which is
> a small win since carl9170_op_tx is sort of a hot-path.
Putting a comment there is fine. Without the comment
it's easy for a human reader to get confused why the
check is there. So long as humans can read the code,
that's all that matters."

[1] <http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg94526.html>
[2] <http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-kernel-janitors/msg14953.html>
Reported-by: NDan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: NChristian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJohn W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>