linux-kernel - [PATCH v3] Staging: wlan-ng: hfa384x_usb: fixed an 'else' statement coding style issue

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1418955506-30099-1-git-send-email-edusbarretto@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:18:26 -0200
From:	Eduardo Barretto <edusbarretto@...il.com>
To:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3] Staging: wlan-ng: hfa384x_usb: fixed an 'else' statement coding style issue

Checkpatch was complaining about the else statement because the if statement had a return '1' call. Taking a look at the function which this else statement belongs, you can see that it has an switch case statement.
The main idea of the function is to return '1' if you get into any of the cases (including the default case where the "problematic" if/else statement is declared).
If any of the cases is not sufficient the function should return '0', so the else statement that checkpath was complaining could be removed, and what was done inside this else statement can be done outside the switch case statement and then we return '0'.
This way we have a cleaner code and no checkpatch error complaints.

Signed-off-by: Eduardo Barretto <edusbarretto@...il.com>
---
 drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x_usb.c | 11 +++++------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x_usb.c b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x_usb.c
index 55d2f56..de33a07 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x_usb.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x_usb.c
@@ -4123,12 +4123,11 @@ static int hfa384x_isgood_pdrcode(u16 pdrcode)
 			pr_debug("Encountered unknown PDR#=0x%04x, assuming it's ok.\n",
 				 pdrcode);
 			return 1;
-		} else {
-			/* bad code */
-			pr_debug("Encountered unknown PDR#=0x%04x, (>=0x1000), assuming it's bad.\n",
-				 pdrcode);
-			return 0;
 		}
+		break;
 	}
-	return 0;		/* avoid compiler warnings */
+	/* bad code */
+	pr_debug("Encountered unknown PDR#=0x%04x, (>=0x1000), assuming it's bad.\n",
+		 pdrcode);
+	return 0;
 }
--
2.2.0

--
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/