On 6/24/22 05:34, Chang Yu wrote:
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.
description:
You wrote what you did in the description. Even when the why can be
likely answered as well it is not sufficient for Greg K-H.
I propose something like:
Combine two nested if statements into a single one to increase readability.
Or
Combine two nested if statements into a single one to shorten code.
subject:
I am guessing. The subject could may be remain but I think it is to
general. Please consider that we can have multiple of this subjects what
is not good. How to know which patch is which?
I propose something like:
staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements in function xxxx
Or
staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements in file xxxx
But consider that the patches that were accepted do also have a not so
specific subject. The description was very clear about the "why". There
the reason was always checkpatch.
Bye Philipp
