linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: os

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: <7f406b96-fbfd-bd3e-182b-3ca8b3056635@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:58:03 +0530
From:   Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>,
        Larry.Finger@...inger.net, phil@...lpotter.co.uk,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, straube.linux@...il.com,
        martin@...ser.cx, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     saurav.girepunje@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: os_dep: remove the goto statement



On 01/11/21 12:47 am, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-10-31 at 21:43 +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
>> On 10/31/21 21:10, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>>> Remove the goto statement from rtw_init_drv_sw(). In this function goto
>>> can be replace by return statement. As on goto label exit, function
>>> only return it is not performing any cleanup. Avoiding goto will
>>> improve the function readability.
> []
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/os_intfs.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/os_intfs.c
> []
>>> @@ -480,48 +480,34 @@ u8 rtw_init_drv_sw(struct adapter *padapter)
>>>   {
>>>   	u8	ret8 = _SUCCESS;
>>
>> Btw, this variable can be removed completely then. It's used only for:
>>
>> ret8 = rtw_init_default_value(padapter);
>>
>> with your patch applied, but rtw_init_default_value() always returns 
>> _SUCCESS.
>>
>>> -exit:
>>>  	return ret8;
>>>  }
>>
>> And just `return _SUCCESS;` here.
> 
> And maybe one day s/_SUCCESS/true/ and s/_FAIL/false/
> with appropriate conversions to bool
> 
> 

Yes this is another improvement possible on this function.

Regards,
Saurav