From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 225BC68 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 08:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1EC161212; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 08:28:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1636100936; bh=d8ClCd+ktXC6e1v43RbHJZ+dioNorMIQdJIcBGJ/ADg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=XeP9OBW0SDcsGQZfQT5VVghu9XkoT796Z6Wro/WYvAHmHZiFWJ4FNHbL738VQKGfg Fv3fAMd4G1dnxHturxWvfrtrBCDY4UlmvkASl6e/FhExwvcoeGnnjgl0r9Lv1agPh5 Pf1Xno98bqAFd6Vz2InD/qvkOPQvuhRcFgge5U1A= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:28:53 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Saurav Girepunje Cc: Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, phil@philpotter.co.uk, straube.linux@gmail.com, martin@kaiser.cx, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, saurav.girepunje@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: hal: else is not useful after a return Message-ID: References: <5013033b-b1f1-aef7-9fb8-a8431e83960b@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5013033b-b1f1-aef7-9fb8-a8431e83960b@gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 12:53:33AM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote: > > > On 01/11/21 6:31 pm, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 12:05:50AM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote: > >> In the function rtl8188eu_hal_init() else after the return statement > >> of the if section is not useful. As if condition is true function will > >> return from if section, On the other case if condition is false > >> function will not return and statement after the if section will > >> execute, So there is no need to have else in this case. Remove the > >> else after a return statement of the if section. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje > >> --- > >> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c | 7 ++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > Hi, > > > > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him > > a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond > > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept > > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was > > created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem > > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux > > kernel tree. > > > > You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) > > as indicated below: > > > > - You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be > > applied in which order. Greg could just guess, but if you are > > receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply. > > Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the > > kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how > > to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly. > > > > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about > > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and > > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received > > from other developers. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h's patch email bot> > > Hi Greg, > > I have send only one patch for usb_halinit.c. > However I have send another patch staging: r8188eu: hal: break after the return not useful > for another file HalPwrSeqCmd.c both are on same path drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/ That's great, but when you send multiple patches at once, you need to send them as a patch series so they are applied in the correct order. Please fix that up here and do so. thanks, greg k-h