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]

Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 16:31:08 +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 04:25:29PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

Wait, this was just a mistake I think.  It's not a cover letter.  It's
not part of the eight patch series but it probably was intended to be as
you suggest.

The patches are basically okay.  Greg applies patches in the order that
he recieves them so it should all apply fine.  And if it doesn't Greg
will just ask for a resend.  No big deal.

regards,
dan carpenter