linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: hal: else is not useful after a return

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: <5013033b-b1f1-aef7-9fb8-a8431e83960b@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 00:53:33 +0530
From:   Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@...inger.net, phil@...lpotter.co.uk,
        straube.linux@...il.com, martin@...ser.cx,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        saurav.girepunje@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: hal: else is not useful after a return



On 01/11/21 6:31 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 12:05:50AM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>> In the function rtl8188eu_hal_init() else after the return statement
>> of the if section is not useful. As if condition is true function will
>> return from if section, On the other case if condition is false
>> function will not return and statement after the if section will
>> execute, So there is no need to have else in this case. Remove the
>> else after a return statement of the if section.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c | 7 ++++---
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
> 
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
> 
> - You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
>   applied in which order.  Greg could just guess, but if you are
>   receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply.
>   Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
>   kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
>   to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.
> 
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h's patch email bot>

Hi Greg,

I have send only one patch for usb_halinit.c.
However I have send another patch staging: r8188eu: hal: break after the return not useful
for another file HalPwrSeqCmd.c both are on same path drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/ 

Regards,
Saurav