Hi Bhaktipriya, On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> This patch fixes checkpatch.pl warning in rtw_mlme_ext.c file. >> WARNING: void function return statements are not generally useful >> >> Signed-off-by: Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/staging/rtl8723au/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 10 ---------- >> 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c >> index d28f29a..e8a16b9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c >> @@ -2657,7 +2657,6 @@ static void issue_probersp(struct rtw_adapter *padapter, unsigned char *da) >> >> dump_mgntframe23a(padapter, pmgntframe); >> >> - return; >> } > > If you insist on pushing this rather unncessary change, please do it > properly, and remove the blank line before the return statement as well. As Jes said, you need to remove the blank lines before the returns too. checkpatch should have picked this up, you did run the patch through checkpatch before you sent it, right? Jes, I know you have strong feelings on coding style, but there are a lot of people out there who see deviations from the standard as bugs to be fixed, so stuff like this isn't going to stop until it matches the coding style document's spec. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
