On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:45:07AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:14:04PM -0700, Chang Yu wrote:
> > Combine two nested if statements into a single one
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chang Yu <marcus.yu.56@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > Added a pair of parentheses to make operator precedence explicit.
> >
> > drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c | 6 ++----
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
> > index 6564e82ddd66..020bc212532f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
> > @@ -166,10 +166,8 @@ int rtw_free_recvframe(struct recv_frame *precvframe, struct __queue *pfree_recv
> >
> > list_add_tail(&precvframe->list, get_list_head(pfree_recv_queue));
> >
> > - if (padapter) {
> > - if (pfree_recv_queue == &precvpriv->free_recv_queue)
> > - precvpriv->free_recvframe_cnt++;
> > - }
> > + if (padapter && (pfree_recv_queue == &precvpriv->free_recv_queue))
> > + precvpriv->free_recvframe_cnt++;
> >
> > spin_unlock_bh(&pfree_recv_queue->lock);
> >
> > --
> > 2.36.1
> >
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
>
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
>
> - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
> possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the
> section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
> properly describe the change.
>
> - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
> and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read
> the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
> look like.
>
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h's patch email bot
I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. I checked the original patch
again and the subject and the body looks OK to me. I'm still a newbie so
I might have missed a couple of things. It would be greatly appreciated
if someone could point out what's missing.
