[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YlYPuIMr8mq66Lea@iweiny-desk3>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 16:48:08 -0700
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Sevinj Aghayeva <sevinj.aghayeva@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: simplify control flow
On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 06:42:07PM -0400, Sevinj Aghayeva wrote:
> Checkpatch issues "WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break
> or return" for the following code:
>
> while (1) {
> do_join_r = rtw_do_join(padapter);
> if (do_join_r == _SUCCESS) {
> break;
> } else {
> rtw_dec_to_roam(padapter);
>
> if (rtw_to_roam(padapter) > 0) {
> continue;
> } else {
> rtw_indicate_disconnect(padapter);
> break;
> }
> }
> }
>
> We simplify this code in multiple steps. First, we remove do_join_r
I can't say how Greg would like to see a change like this but my gut says that
each of these steps should be a patch in a series...
> variable because it is only used right after it is assigned. Second,
> we remove the unnecessary else statement right after break:
>
> while (1) {
> if (rtw_do_join(padapter) == _SUCCESS)
> break;
> rtw_dec_to_roam(padapter);
>
> if (rtw_to_roam(padapter) > 0) {
> continue;
> } else {
> rtw_indicate_disconnect(padapter);
> break;
> }
> }
>
> Next, we move the call to rtw_do_join into the while test because the
> while will loop only until the call is successful:
>
> while (rtw_do_join(padapter) != _SUCCESS) {
> rtw_dec_to_roam(padapter);
> if (rtw_to_roam(padapter) > 0) {
> continue;
> } else {
> rtw_indicate_disconnect(padapter);
> break;
> }
> }
>
> Finally, looking at the code above, it is clear that the code will
> break out of the loop if rtw_to_roam call is <= 0. Hence:
>
> while (rtw_do_join(padapter) != _SUCCESS) {
> rtw_dec_to_roam(padapter);
> if (rtw_to_roam(padapter) <= 0) {
> rtw_indicate_disconnect(padapter);
> break;
> }
> }
... that said, this commit message made reviewing the change much easier,
thanks.
Did you submit a patch for the r8188eu driver too? I just noticed it has a
similar loop in _rtw_roaming().
Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Sevinj Aghayeva <sevinj.aghayeva@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme.c | 18 ++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme.c
> index 3eacf8f9d236..a45df775d535 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme.c
> @@ -2594,30 +2594,20 @@ void _rtw_roaming(struct adapter *padapter, struct wlan_network *tgt_network)
> {
> struct mlme_priv *pmlmepriv = &padapter->mlmepriv;
> struct wlan_network *cur_network = &pmlmepriv->cur_network;
> - int do_join_r;
>
> if (rtw_to_roam(padapter) > 0) {
> memcpy(&pmlmepriv->assoc_ssid, &cur_network->network.ssid, sizeof(struct ndis_802_11_ssid));
>
> pmlmepriv->assoc_by_bssid = false;
>
> - while (1) {
> - do_join_r = rtw_do_join(padapter);
> - if (do_join_r == _SUCCESS) {
> + while (rtw_do_join(padapter) != _SUCCESS) {
> + rtw_dec_to_roam(padapter);
> + if (rtw_to_roam(padapter) <= 0) {
> + rtw_indicate_disconnect(padapter);
> break;
> - } else {
> - rtw_dec_to_roam(padapter);
> -
> - if (rtw_to_roam(padapter) > 0) {
> - continue;
> - } else {
> - rtw_indicate_disconnect(padapter);
> - break;
> - }
> }
> }
> }
> -
> }
>
> signed int rtw_linked_check(struct adapter *padapter)
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists