On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:17:31PM -0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote:
> sec_idx in rtw_get_sec_ie() is set to 0 and never changes value. Also,
> it is only used for debugging messages. Therefore the variable is
> removed and the debug messages are adjusted. Adjusting debug messages
> forced style changes. Taking the opportunity to adjust indentation
> of those sections of the code.
The re-indents are not related to the other change so you're going to
have to split this up into two different patches.
Generally you're making a whitespace change on the same line as the code
you are changing then that's fine. But sometimes re-indenting it makes
the change harder to spot (review). I would say that this code is
easier to review without any indenting changes:
ONE:
- RT_TRACE(_module_rtl871x_mlme_c_, _drv_info_, ("\n rtw_get_wpa_ie: sec_idx =%d in_ie[cnt+1]+2 =%d\n", sec_idx, in_ie[cnt+1]+2));
+ RT_TRACE(_module_rtl871x_mlme_c_, _drv_info_, ("\n rtw_get_wpa_ie: in_ie[cnt+1]+2 =%d\n", in_ie[cnt+1]+2));
TWO:
- RT_TRACE(_module_rtl871x_mlme_c_, _drv_info_, ("\n rtw_get_wpa_ie: sec_idx =%d in_ie[cnt+1]+2 =%d\n", sec_idx, in_ie[cnt+1]+2));
+ RT_TRACE(_module_rtl871x_mlme_c_, _drv_info_,
+ ("\n rtw_get_wpa_ie: in_ie[cnt+1]+2 =%d\n", in_ie[cnt + 1] + 2));
> memcpy(wpa_ie, &in_ie[cnt], in_ie[cnt+1]+2);
>
> for (i = 0; i < (in_ie[cnt+1]+2); i = i+8) {
> - RT_TRACE(_module_rtl871x_mlme_c_, _drv_info_, ("\n %2x,%2x,%2x,%2x,%2x,%2x,%2x,%2x\n",
> - wpa_ie[i], wpa_ie[i+1], wpa_ie[i+2], wpa_ie[i+3], wpa_ie[i+4],
> - wpa_ie[i+5], wpa_ie[i+6], wpa_ie[i+7]));
> - }
> + RT_TRACE(_module_rtl871x_mlme_c_, _drv_info_,
> + ("\n %2x,%2x,%2x,%2x,%2x,%2x,%2x,%2x\n",
> + wpa_ie[i], wpa_ie[i + 1], wpa_ie[i + 2],
> + wpa_ie[i + 3], wpa_ie[i + 4],
> + wpa_ie[i + 5], wpa_ie[i + 6],
> + wpa_ie[i + 7]));
In this case, the curly braces were fine in the original. Multi-line
indented normally get curly braces for readability.
> }
> + }
>
regards,
dan carpenter
