On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 07:47:12AM +0200, Philipp Hortmann wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thank you very much for the valuable input. I will reword the subject
and the description and re-send the patch momentarily.
