I don't really like the focus on commit message minutia... :/
Basically everyone can understand the commit message. There are one or
two maintainers who will fly into a rage when they see the word "fix"
in a commit message but I have a simple solution where I just never
email them again. My time is too valuable for that nonsense.
We would have applied this patch as is. Or I would normally have
written it like this:
[PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Delete a stray tab in rtw_survey_cmd_callback()
This code works fine, but the line is indented too far so it's confusing.
Delete a tab.
Signed-off-by: ...
I had reviewed this patch earlier and almost pointed out that both sides
of the if statement are the same except for the comment. The "need to
make timeout handlerOS independent" comment is wrong. I have not looked
at the details of the other comment.
I did not send my review comments because the patch was fine. But what
we want is for the code to look more like this.
regards,
dan carpenter
diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
index 6eca30124ee8..dcf7b24f95a8 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
@@ -1404,11 +1404,8 @@ void rtw_survey_cmd_callback(struct adapter *padapter, struct cmd_obj *pcmd)
{
struct mlme_priv *pmlmepriv = &padapter->mlmepriv;
- if (pcmd->res == H2C_DROPPED) {
+ if (pcmd->res != H2C_SUCCESS) {
/* TODO: cancel timer and do timeout handler directly... */
- /* need to make timeout handlerOS independent */
- _set_timer(&pmlmepriv->scan_to_timer, 1);
- } else if (pcmd->res != H2C_SUCCESS) {
_set_timer(&pmlmepriv->scan_to_timer, 1);
}
