linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: fix suspect code indent for conditional statements

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: <YkWZKOvThq5paUi3@bertie>
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:06:00 -0500
From:   Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: fix suspect code indent for
 conditional statements

Hi Dan,

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 09:28:29AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I don't really like the focus on commit message minutia...  :/
> Basically everyone can understand the commit message.  There are one or
> two maintainers who will fly into a rage when they see the word "fix"
> in a commit message but I have a simple solution where I just never
> email them again.  My time is too valuable for that nonsense.
> 
> We would have applied this patch as is.  Or I would normally have
> written it like this:
> 
> [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Delete a stray tab in rtw_survey_cmd_callback()
> 
> This code works fine, but the line is indented too far so it's confusing.
> Delete a tab.
> 
> Signed-off-by: ...
> 
> I had reviewed this patch earlier and almost pointed out that both sides
> of the if statement are the same except for the comment.  The "need to
> make timeout handlerOS independent" comment is wrong.  I have not looked
> at the details of the other comment.
> 
> I did not send my review comments because the patch was fine.  But what
> we want is for the code to look more like this.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> index 6eca30124ee8..dcf7b24f95a8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> @@ -1404,11 +1404,8 @@ void rtw_survey_cmd_callback(struct adapter *padapter,  struct cmd_obj *pcmd)
>  {
>  	struct	mlme_priv *pmlmepriv = &padapter->mlmepriv;
>  
> -	if (pcmd->res == H2C_DROPPED) {
> +	if (pcmd->res != H2C_SUCCESS) {
>  		/* TODO: cancel timer and do timeout handler directly... */
> -		/* need to make timeout handlerOS independent */
> -		_set_timer(&pmlmepriv->scan_to_timer, 1);
> -		} else if (pcmd->res != H2C_SUCCESS) {
>  		_set_timer(&pmlmepriv->scan_to_timer, 1);
>  	}
>  

Is it okay if I submit a patch to implement your suggestion? I would
include a "Suggested-by" tag.

Thanks,
Rebecca