linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: removed an unnecessary else statement

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <548F1686.4080507@lwfinger.net>
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:12:38 -0600
From:	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@...il.com>
CC:	trivial@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: removed an unnecessary else statement

On 12/15/2014 10:39 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.

I have almost been tripped by this warning when the code said

	if (...) {
		.......
	} else if (...) {
		.......
		return;
	} else {
		.......
	}

Perhaps checkpatch should ignore setting this warning when there is an "else if" 
in the flow.

Larry

--
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/