linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove else after return and break 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: <20226182-81b2-92b9-d286-d9520a1d568b@lwfinger.net>
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:51:41 -0500
From:   Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
To:     Mahak Gupta <mahak_g@...iitr.ac.in>, phil@...lpotter.co.uk,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove else after return and break
 statements

On 4/13/22 00:27, Mahak Gupta wrote:
> Else is not necessary after return and break statements, hence remove
> it.
> 
> Reported by checkpatch:
> 
> WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mahak Gupta <mahak_g@...iitr.ac.in>

The commit message is redundant. I would suggest the following:

checkpatch reports the following:

WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return

Remove those cases.


> ---
>   drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ieee80211.c | 41 ++++++++------------
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ieee80211.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
> index 5a0e42ed4a47..bb4c9bc864da 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
> @@ -97,16 +97,15 @@ bool	rtw_is_cckratesonly_included(u8 *rate)
>   
>   int rtw_check_network_type(unsigned char *rate, int ratelen, int channel)
>   {
> -	if (channel > 14) {
> +	if (channel > 14)
>   		return WIRELESS_INVALID;
> -	} else {  /*  could be pure B, pure G, or B/G */
> -		if (rtw_is_cckratesonly_included(rate))
> -			return WIRELESS_11B;
> -		else if (rtw_is_cckrates_included(rate))
> -			return	WIRELESS_11BG;
> -		else
> -			return WIRELESS_11G;
> -	}
> +	/*  could be pure B, pure G, or B/G */
> +	if (rtw_is_cckratesonly_included(rate))
> +		return WIRELESS_11B;
> +	else if (rtw_is_cckrates_included(rate))
> +		return	WIRELESS_11BG;
> +	else
> +		return WIRELESS_11G;

Is this 'else' necessary?


Larry