linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8192u: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20141218223819.GB6742@hudson.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:38:19 -0800
From:	Jeremiah Mahler <jmmahler@...il.com>
To:	Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@...il.com>
Cc:	trivial@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, anarey@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8192u: removed an unnecessary else statement

Karthik,

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:50:11PM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> As per checkpatch warning, removed an unnecessary else statement
> proceeding an if statement with a return.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c | 16 +++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
> index 936565d..b3b508c 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
> @@ -480,15 +480,13 @@ static void dm_bandwidth_autoswitch(struct net_device *dev)
>  
>  	if(priv->CurrentChannelBW == HT_CHANNEL_WIDTH_20 ||!priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bautoswitch_enable){
>  		return;
> -	}else{
> -		if(priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz == false){//If send packets in 40 Mhz in 20/40
> -			if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb <= priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_40Mhzto20Mhz)
> -				priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = true;
> -		}else{//in force send packets in 20 Mhz in 20/40
> -			if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb >= priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_20Mhzto40Mhz)
> -				priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = false;
> -
> -		}
> +	}
> +	if(priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz == false){//If send packets in 40 Mhz in 20/40
> +		if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb <= priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_40Mhzto20Mhz)
> +			priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = true;
> +	}else{//in force send packets in 20 Mhz in 20/40
> +		if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb >= priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_20Mhzto40Mhz)
> +			priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = false;
>  	}
>  }	// dm_BandwidthAutoSwitch
>  
[...]

Wow, I don't think I have ever seen a file with so many checkpatch errors!

Instead of only fixing one instance of one error I would fix all
instances of that type of error.  Since the changes would be very
similar it should still be easy to review.

You could even make a whole patch series with each patch fixing one type
of error.  Although I would keep the series to just a few at first until
you are sure you are doing everything right.

-- 
- Jeremiah Mahler
--
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/