linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: remove if (true) 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: <20210519132529.GV1955@kadam>
Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 16:25:29 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@...il.com>
Cc:     Bryan Brattlof <hello@...anbrattlof.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: remove if (true) statement

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 02:44:38PM +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
> 
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 02:45:19PM +0000, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
> > 'if (true) { ... }' will always evaluate to true. Remove it and
> > save a few tabs for somewhere else.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bryan Brattlof <hello@...anbrattlof.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c | 159 ++++++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> > index 9df4476b2e2d..98b1bec67999 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> > @@ -59,112 +59,109 @@ static void update_BCNTIM(struct adapter *padapter)
> >
> 
> I was wondering why are you using the first patch of a nine patch
> series as a 'cover letter' of an eight patch patchset.
> 
> In other words, why putting the In-Reply-To field of all patches subsequent
> to the first one ponting to the first patch itself as a cover letter,
> is it a recommened practice?

It's fine.  It doesn't matter.  It's not recommended.  I do it normally
if I have to send patches in certain order.  I never write cover letters
because my patches are all independent bug fixes and not new features.

regards,
dan carpenter