Re: [PATCH 1/2] ath11k: mac: fix too long line

[Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>]

Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com> writes:

> On 5/2/2022 11:04 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> From: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@quicinc.com>
>>
>> checkpatch warns:
>>
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/mac.c:7760: line length of 91 exceeds 90 columns
>>
>> This was introduced by commit 046d2e7c50e3 ("mac80211: prepare sta handling for
>> MLO support").
>>
>> Compile tested only.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@quicinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/mac.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/mac.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/mac.c
>> index c76cac5d6849..32fb0142124d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/mac.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/mac.c
>> @@ -7735,6 +7735,7 @@ ath11k_mac_validate_vht_he_fixed_rate_settings(struct ath11k *ar, enum nl80211_b
>>   	bool he_fixed_rate = false, vht_fixed_rate = false;
>>   	struct ath11k_peer *peer, *tmp;
>>   	const u16 *vht_mcs_mask, *he_mcs_mask;
>> +	struct ieee80211_link_sta *deflink;
>>   	u8 vht_nss, he_nss;
>>   	bool ret = true;
>>   @@ -7757,13 +7758,16 @@
>> ath11k_mac_validate_vht_he_fixed_rate_settings(struct ath11k *ar,
>> enum nl80211_b
>>   	spin_lock_bh(&ar->ab->base_lock);
>>   	list_for_each_entry_safe(peer, tmp, &ar->ab->peers, list) {
>>   		if (peer->sta) {
>> -			if (vht_fixed_rate && (!peer->sta->deflink.vht_cap.vht_supported ||
>> -					       peer->sta->deflink.rx_nss < vht_nss)) {
>> +			deflink = &peer->sta->deflink;
>
>
> is there a reason to not declare deflink here?
> then its scope of definition would equal the scope of usage

In ath10k and ath11k I have tried to avoid that and instead declare all
variables in the beginning of the function, this is to keep the code
simple. Of course there are few cases where a variable is declared in
the middle of the function, but that's just sloppy review on my part. I
feel that it's better to refactor the function into smaller functions
than start declaring variables in the middle of functions. Does that
make sense?

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches

-- 
ath11k mailing list
ath11k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath11k