Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] staging: vt6655: Remove else after return statement

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:00:24PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:38 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:23:46PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 11:59:18AM +0000, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
> >> >> Remove else after return statement. Issue found with checkpatch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Nishka Dasgupta <nishka.dasgupta_ug18@ashoka.edu.in>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> Changes in v3:
> >> >>  - None.
> >> >>
> >> >>  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >> >>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> >> >> index 9c4a532..89adee4 100644
> >> >> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> >> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> >> >> @@ -568,28 +568,27 @@ s_uFillDataHead(
> >> >>                                                                               wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> >> >>                       buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> >> >>                       return buf->duration;
> >> >> -             } else {
> >> >> -                     struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> >> >> -                     /* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
> >> >> -                     vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
> >> >> -                                       byPktType, &buf->ab);
> >> >> -
> >> >> -                     if (is_pspoll) {
> >> >> -                             __le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
> >> >> +             }
> >> >> +             struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> >> >
> >> > NEVER add a build warning with a patch.  That's a huge sign you did not
> >> > do it correctly :(
> >> >
> >> > Because of that, I can not take this change, sorry.  Please fix it up
> >> > and resend.
> >> >
> >> Which build warning is in this patch? (I apologise for adding it, and
> >> will fix it when I can locate the warning.)
> >
> > The one you get when you build the driver with this patch applied.  It
> > should be very obvious as there was not a build warning without this
> > patch :)
> 
> I have resent the patch as v4 (since I had 3 versions of the entire
> patchset already).
> This time, the build warnings were the usual 80-character limit ones
> (that were already there); I left those in. Is that okay?

The compiler (gcc) does not emit 80-character warnings, only checkpatch
does.  Are you _sure_ you are actually building the kernel changes you
are making?

thanks,

greg k-h