On 9/16/22 05:06, Anjandev Momi wrote:
After applying this patch, file drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c only
has "Avoid CamelCase" coding style issue
The patch description needs to describe _why_ the change is required or
makes sense.
Have a look at:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/20220911174933.3784-3-straube.linux@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u
Signed-off-by: Anjandev Momi <anjan@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c | 16 +++++++---------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
index 7d04966af..b4e565af1 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ void ResetBaEntry(struct ba_record *pBA)
pBA->dialog_token = 0;
pBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl.short_data = 0;
}
+
static struct sk_buff *rtllib_ADDBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *Dst,
struct ba_record *pBA,
u16 StatusCode, u8 type)
This makes sense
@@ -113,7 +114,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *rtllib_ADDBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *Dst,
tag += 2;
if (type == ACT_ADDBAREQ) {
- memcpy(tag, (u8 *)&(pBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl), 2);
+ memcpy(tag, (u8 *)&pBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl, 2);
tag += 2;
}
This makes sense
@@ -161,7 +162,6 @@ static struct sk_buff *rtllib_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *dst,
*tag++ = ACT_CAT_BA;
*tag++ = ACT_DELBA;
-
put_unaligned_le16(DelbaParamSet.short_data, tag);
tag += 2;
This makes sense
@@ -258,8 +258,8 @@ int rtllib_rx_ADDBAReq(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
ieee->pHTInfo->bCurrentHTSupport);
goto OnADDBAReq_Fail;
}
- if (!GetTs(ieee, (struct ts_common_info **)(&pTS), dst,
- (u8)(pBaParamSet->field.tid), RX_DIR, true)) {
+ if (!GetTs(ieee, (struct ts_common_info **)(&pTS),
+ dst, (u8)(pBaParamSet->field.tid), RX_DIR, true)) {
rc = ADDBA_STATUS_REFUSED;
netdev_warn(ieee->dev, "%s(): can't get TS\n", __func__);
goto OnADDBAReq_Fail;
Why do you need to put the "dst" to the next line?
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_ADDBAReq(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
pBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl = *pBaStartSeqCtrl;
if (ieee->GetHalfNmodeSupportByAPsHandler(ieee->dev) ||
- (ieee->pHTInfo->IOTAction & HT_IOT_ACT_ALLOW_PEER_AGG_ONE_PKT))
+ (ieee->pHTInfo->IOTAction & HT_IOT_ACT_ALLOW_PEER_AGG_ONE_PKT))
pBA->ba_param_set.field.buffer_size = 1;
else
pBA->ba_param_set.field.buffer_size = 32;
Did checkpatch tell you to do so?
@@ -380,7 +380,6 @@ int rtllib_rx_ADDBARsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
goto OnADDBARsp_Reject;
}
-
pAdmittedBA->dialog_token = *pDialogToken;
pAdmittedBA->ba_timeout_value = *pBaTimeoutVal;
pAdmittedBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl = pPendingBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl;
This makes sense
@@ -419,8 +418,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
return -1;
}
- if (!ieee->current_network.qos_data.active ||
- !ieee->pHTInfo->bCurrentHTSupport) {
+ if (!ieee->current_network.qos_data.active || !ieee->pHTInfo->bCurrentHTSupport) {
netdev_warn(ieee->dev,
"received DELBA while QOS or HT is not supported(%d, %d)\n",
ieee->current_network. qos_data.active,
This makes sense
@@ -440,7 +438,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
struct rx_ts_record *pRxTs;
if (!GetTs(ieee, (struct ts_common_info **)&pRxTs, dst,
- (u8)pDelBaParamSet->field.tid, RX_DIR, false)) {
+ (u8)pDelBaParamSet->field.tid, RX_DIR, false)) {
netdev_warn(ieee->dev,
"%s(): can't get TS for RXTS. dst:%pM TID:%d\n",
__func__, dst,
Did checkpatch tell you to do so? Checkpatch is not always right. I see
what you want to do but I cannot say that this is really improving
readability.
Always consider that I am not the maintainer. Those are just my opinions.
I can apply and compile your patch. Connection works.
I am sure you need a v2 of this patch with an updated description.
Please do include a change history.
Bye Philipp
