On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 17:57 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 12:19:50PM +0530, Sohom Datta wrote:
> > > From 4c8c8f3ff7f4d711daea4ac3bb987fcecc7ef1ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Sohom <sohom.datta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 18:04:56 +0530
> > Subject: [RESEND PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: Fix else after return WARNING
> > (checkpatch)
> >
> > Fixed:
> > WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
> > 1636: FILE: ./rtw_recv.c:1636:
> > + return false;
> > + else
> >
> > Separated the return statement into a separate block since
> > it doesn't seem to depend on the SN_LESS explicity being false.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sohom <sohom.datta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
> > index 5fe7a0458dd2..5e81134ffb6d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
> > @@ -1629,10 +1629,11 @@ static int enqueue_reorder_recvframe(struct recv_reorder_ctrl *preorder_ctrl,
> > hdr = list_entry(plist, struct recv_frame, list);
> > pnextattrib = &hdr->attrib;
> >
> > + if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > if (SN_LESS(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num))
> > plist = plist->next;
> > - else if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num))
> > - return false;
> > else
> > break;
> > }
>
> Checkpatch is just wrong here. Ignore it when it's wrong.
It's not "wrong" here. It's making a suggestion.
Perhaps read the SN_EQUAL and SN_LESS macros.
a and b are both u16's here.
drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/include/rtw_recv.h:#define SN_LESS(a, b) (((a - b) & 0x800) != 0)
drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/include/rtw_recv.h:#define SN_EQUAL(a, b) (a == b)
Reordering works, perhaps it's just a question of
whether it's the most likely result of the test.
This is in a while loop.
If the expected test is really the most likely that
SN_LESS is true, then perhaps this loop could be
something like:
if (SN_LESS(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num)) {
plist = plist->next;
continue;
}
if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num))
return false;
break;
}
The real question is whether or not that's more readable.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
