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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:28:53 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
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 Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 12:53:33AM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> 
> 
> 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/ 

That's great, but when you send multiple patches at once, you need to
send them as a patch series so they are applied in the correct order.

Please fix that up here and do so.

thanks,

greg k-h