On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 02:40:46PM +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 02:56:26PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 12:01:21PM +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > > @@ -568,20 +561,11 @@ static s32 update_attrib_sec_info(struct adapter *padapter, struct pkt_attrib *p
> > > if (pattrib->encrypt > 0)
> > > memcpy(pattrib->dot118021x_UncstKey.skey, psta->dot118021x_UncstKey.skey, 16);
> > >
> > > - RT_TRACE(_module_rtl871x_xmit_c_, _drv_info_,
> > > - ("update_attrib: encrypt =%d securitypriv.sw_encrypt =%d\n",
> > > - pattrib->encrypt, padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt));
> > > -
> > > if (pattrib->encrypt &&
> > > - ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt == true) || (psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted == false))) {
> > > + ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt) || (!psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted)))
> >
> > You've done too much clean up here. Just remove the { but leave the
> > == true/false comparisons.
> >
> > If the patch is only changing five lines or code then fixing checkpatch
> > warnings on the line of code you are changing is fine, but in this case
> > you're doing a bunch of changes and these sort of cleanups make it hard
> > to review.
> >
> > Ease to spot that the curly brace changed:
> > - ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt == true) || (psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted == false))) {
> > + ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt == true) || (psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted == false)))
> >
> > Hard to spot:
> > - ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt == true) || (psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted == false))) {
> > + ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt) || (!psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted)))
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >
>
> thank you Dan, it's a good tuning process for me. Shall I resend the
> whole patchset? Maybe some of them are ok...
Yes please, you do not want me to pick and choose individual patches out
of this series. Our tools grab the whole series at once to apply them.
thanks,
greg k-h
