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

Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:21:39 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.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

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 07:06:00AM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > 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.

Yes, that's always okay.

I would probably send it as one patch, but I suggest you would be better
off sending it as two uncontroversial patches.  patch 1: delete the
"handlerOS independent" comment.  Patch2: combine both sides of the if
statement.

regards,
dan carpenter