linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rtl8192e: Fix parenthesis alignment in rtl

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]

Message-ID: <16df34b2-4d9e-43d4-9176-dea31d58ce2d@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 23:09:31 +0200
From: Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com>
To: Gabriel Tassinari <gabrieldtassinari@...il.com>,
 linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, ~lkcamp/patches@...ts.sr.ht
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rtl8192e: Fix parenthesis alignment in
 rtl_core.c:325

On 8/26/24 21:58, Gabriel Tassinari wrote:
> fix parenthesis alignment in _rtl92e_qos_handle_probe_response to
> silence checkpatch warning:
> 
> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Tassinari <gabrieldtassinari@...il.com>
> ---
> v2: Include the modified file in commit message
> ---
>   drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.c
> index ad21263e725f..18739583f579 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.c
> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ static int _rtl92e_qos_handle_probe_response(struct r8192_priv *priv,
>   
>   	if (network->flags & NETWORK_HAS_QOS_MASK) {
>   		if (active_network &&
> -				(network->flags & NETWORK_HAS_QOS_PARAMETERS))
> +		   (network->flags & NETWORK_HAS_QOS_PARAMETERS))
>   			network->qos_data.active = network->qos_data.supported;
>   
>   		if ((network->qos_data.active == 1) && (active_network == 1) &&

Hi Gabriel,

I would do the indentation one space deeper to show that it is included 
in the if (
-                  (network->flags & NETWORK_HAS_QOS_PARAMETERS))
+                   (network->flags & NETWORK_HAS_QOS_PARAMETERS))

You can ask the question why I did not tell you earlier... sorry I 
missed that and I wonder why checkpatch did not catch that.

Thanks for your support.

Bye Philipp