linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:52:14 -0700
From:   Chang Yu <marcus.yu.56@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
        phil@...lpotter.co.uk, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into
 one

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 08:39:30AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:34:54PM -0700, Chang Yu wrote:
> > > - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed,
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. I checked the original patch
> > again and the subject and the body looks OK to me. I'm still a newbie so
> > I might have missed a couple of things. It would be greatly appreciated
> > if someone could point out what's missing.
> 
> What's the advantage of combining if statements?  Out of all the if
> statements in the kernel why did you pick that one?  Probably it's
> because the indenting was wrong, no?
> 
> Write the commit message like this:
> 
> [PATCH v3] staging: r8188eu: clean up if statement
> 
> I noticed that the if statement was strange and the code was indented
> too far.  It is cleaner to combine both if statements as well.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter

Understood. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I didn't realize the
description was too general. I simply assumed that the reason for
combining if statements is obvious and did not elaborate. I see now this
is not the right assumption to make. I will revise the patch shortly.

Thank you!

Best,
Chang