On 8/29/24 02:38, Philipp Hortmann wrote:
On 8/28/24 22:45, Manisha Singh wrote:
Remove multiple assignments from a line
CHECK: multiple assignments should be avoided
+ pintf_priv = pintf_hdl->pintfpriv = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
intf_priv),
Hi Manisha,
please remove the 4 upper lines of the description. They are not
required.
Sure.
Refactor the _init_intf_hdl() function to avoid multiple
assignments in a single statement. This change improves code readability
and adheres to kernel coding style guidelines.
Signed-off-by: Manisha Singh <masingh.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes Since V1:
Broke the patch into 2 different fixes
drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl871x_io.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl871x_io.c
b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl871x_io.c
index 6789a4c98564..6311ac15c581 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl871x_io.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl871x_io.c
@@ -48,10 +48,10 @@ static uint _init_intf_hdl(struct _adapter
*padapter,
set_intf_funs = &(r8712_usb_set_intf_funs);
set_intf_ops = &r8712_usb_set_intf_ops;
init_intf_priv = &r8712_usb_init_intf_priv;
- pintf_priv = pintf_hdl->pintfpriv = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
intf_priv),
- GFP_ATOMIC);
+ pintf_priv = kmalloc(sizeof(struct intf_priv), GFP_ATOMIC);
if (!pintf_priv)
goto _init_intf_hdl_fail;
By pushing the below statement after the "if (!pintf_priv)" you change
the logic. Is this really wanted? Why do you think it is better? I
would avoid this and it would be a separate patch anyhow.
+ pintf_hdl->pintfpriv = pintf_priv;
Thanks for your support.
Bye Philipp
Yeah, I shouldn't have changed the logic. I don't have hardware to test
it, Let's move the assignment before the condition.
Thanks,
Manisha
pintf_hdl->adapter = (u8 *)padapter;
set_intf_option(&pintf_hdl->intf_option);
set_intf_funs(pintf_hdl);
