linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: clean up some inconsistent indenting

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: <c4c14b15d5e0c2e4650b50ef7ae9d8755f83900e.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:39:54 +0100
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        briannorris@...omium.org
Cc:     kvalo@...nel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: clean up some inconsistent indenting

On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 16:33 +0800, Jiapeng Chong wrote:
> No functional modification involved.
> 
> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_event.c:789 mwifiex_process_sta_event() warn: inconsistent indenting.

OK, sure ...

> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_event.c
> @@ -762,7 +762,7 @@ int mwifiex_process_sta_event(struct mwifiex_private *priv)
>  		mwifiex_dbg(adapter, EVENT, "info: EVENT: AWAKE\n");
>  		if (!adapter->pps_uapsd_mode &&
>  		    (priv->port_open ||
> -		     (priv->bss_mode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)) &&
> +		    (priv->bss_mode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)) &&
>  		    priv->media_connected && adapter->sleep_period.period) {
>  			adapter->pps_uapsd_mode = true;
>  			mwifiex_dbg(adapter, EVENT,
> @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ int mwifiex_process_sta_event(struct mwifiex_private *priv)
>  			if (mwifiex_check_last_packet_indication(priv)) {
>  				if (adapter->data_sent ||
>  				    (adapter->if_ops.is_port_ready &&
> -				     !adapter->if_ops.is_port_ready(priv))) {
> +				    !adapter->if_ops.is_port_ready(priv))) {
>  					adapter->ps_state = PS_STATE_AWAKE;
>  					adapter->pm_wakeup_card_req = false;
>  					adapter->pm_wakeup_fw_try = false;


Seems fine.

> @@ -781,12 +781,10 @@ int mwifiex_process_sta_event(struct mwifiex_private *priv)
>  					break;
>  				}
>  				if (!mwifiex_send_null_packet
> -					(priv,
> -					 MWIFIEX_TxPD_POWER_MGMT_NULL_PACKET |
> -					 MWIFIEX_TxPD_POWER_MGMT_LAST_PACKET))
> -						adapter->ps_state =
> -							PS_STATE_SLEEP;
> -					return 0;
> +				    (priv, MWIFIEX_TxPD_POWER_MGMT_NULL_PACKET |
> +				     MWIFIEX_TxPD_POWER_MGMT_LAST_PACKET))
> +					adapter->ps_state = PS_STATE_SLEEP;
> +				return 0;
> 

🤷‍♀️️
That's not really an improvement is it? You've just indented the
function arguments as if they were part another part of the condition? I
mean, sure, it was awful - but ... maybe better break the 80 cols rule
(which isn't one any more anyway)?

johannes