Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: core: rtw_wlan_util.c: Modify return type suggested by Coccinelle.

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 08:27:09AM -0700, sanjana99reddy99@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 12:31:06 AM UTC+5:30, gregkh wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:42:22PM +0530, Sanjana Sanikommu wrote: 
> > > The last two lines in the function could 
> > > be compressed into one. Avoid usage of local variable. 
> > > Challenge suggested by Coccinelle using ret.cocci. 
> > > The below is the script for ret.cocci: 
> > > @@ 
> > > local idexpression res; 
> > > expression e; 
> > > @@ 
> > > 
> > > -res = 
> > > +return 
> > >      e; 
> > > -return res; 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sanjana Sanikommu <sanjana9...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> > > --- 
> > >  drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c | 4 +--- 
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) 
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c 
> > b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c 
> > > index 4480deef95a1..70776f8e19a6 100644 
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c 
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c 
> > > @@ -1182,10 +1182,8 @@ unsigned int update_MSC_rate(struct 
> > ieee80211_ht_cap *pHT_caps) 
> > >  { 
> > >          unsigned int mask = 0; 
> > >   
> > > -        mask = (pHT_caps->mcs.rx_mask[0] << 12) | 
> > > +        return (pHT_caps->mcs.rx_mask[0] << 12) | 
> > >                 (pHT_caps->mcs.rx_mask[1] << 20); 
> > > - 
> > > -        return mask; 
> > >  } 
> >
> > Did you build this patch? 
> >
> > Just looking at it I can see the compiler warning that it will emit... 
> >
> > Please always test-build your patches, otherwise it just makes people 
> > grumpy :) 
> >
> 
> I apologise for what happened regarding this patch. I submitted this patch 
> after
> 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks i.e after post commit hooks.
> I would like to know where I went wrong. I will correct them :)

Did you build the code after making the change?  That's the most
important part :)

thanks,

greg k-h