Hi Dan,
On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:01:12 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I feel sort of bad complaining about this patchset when your
> co-workers already nit picked it to death... :P
>
> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 02:13:28PM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:
> > Refactor the code to fix open parenthesis alignment issue reported
> > by checkpatch.pl script in del_station().
>
> I no idea what an "open parenthesis alignment issue" is. It's sort of
> surprising because I deal with checkpatch patches a lot.
The exact issue description reported by checkpatch.pl was
"CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis"
To resolve that issue tried by reducing the leading tabs before
wilc_del_allstations() call, which helped in resolving checkpatch
issue without introducing line over 80 chars.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c | 18
> > ++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c index
> > 4600f4a..7f49d60 100644 ---
> > a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c +++
> > b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c @@ -1997,6
> > +1997,7 @@ static int del_station(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct
> > net_device *dev, s32 ret = 0; struct wilc_priv *priv;
> > struct wilc_vif *vif;
> > + struct sta_info *info;
> >
> > if (!wiphy)
> > return -EFAULT;
> > @@ -2004,16 +2005,17 @@ static int del_station(struct wiphy *wiphy,
> > struct net_device *dev, priv = wiphy_priv(wiphy);
> > vif = netdev_priv(dev);
> >
> > - if (vif->iftype == AP_MODE || vif->iftype == GO_MODE) {
> > - if (!mac)
> > - ret = wilc_del_allstation(vif,
> > -
> > priv->assoc_stainfo.sta_associated_bss);
> > + if (!(vif->iftype == AP_MODE || vif->iftype == GO_MODE))
>
> I feel like this is better as:
> if (vif->iftype != AP_MODE && vif->iftype != GO_MODE)
>
Thanks for your suggestion.
Currently the patch is accepted, i will check and try to include it in
future patch as per your inputs.
> > + return ret;
>
> What is "ret" here? I haven't looked at this patch in context, but
> it's probably zero. Just return the literal.
The value for 'ret' is zero till this point, only if there is
failure to post the command in wilc_eneque_cmd() then 'ret' receives
-ENOMEM value in below code.
Regards,
Ajay
