[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1418661543.2674.17.camel@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:39:03 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@...il.com>
Cc: trivial@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Larry.Finger@...inger.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: removed an unnecessary else statement
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 20:55 +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> As per checkpatch warning, removed an unnecessary else statement
> proceeding an if statement with a return.
This is not a correct change.
The checkpatch message said "generally".
You still have to verify the code.
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
> index cd8b444..800b2b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
> @@ -496,8 +496,7 @@ static int enqueue_reorder_recvframe(struct recv_reorder_ctrl *preorder_ctrl,
> plist = plist->next;
> else if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num))
> return false;
> - else
> - break;
> + break;
It's not the same logic.
It would be if the code was:
while (end_of_queue_search(phead, plist) == false) {
pnextrframe = LIST_CONTAINOR(plist, union recv_frame, u);
pnextattrib = &pnextrframe->u.hdr.attrib;
if (SN_LESS(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num)) {
plist = plist->next;
continue;
} else if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num)) {
return false;
}
break;
}
But that's not necessary.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists