Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: rtl8723bs: core/rtw_mlme_ext.c: initialize copy_len, clearing later control-flow.

[William Hansen-Baird <william.hansen.baird@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 03:38:29PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 11:08:51AM -0500, William Hansen-Baird wrote:
> > Initialize copy_len to 0 in rtw_parse_assoc_security_ies function.
> > This allows later if-statement to not have to explicitly set copy_len to 0.
> > Thus we can make the if statement single-lined, and remove the braces
> > from the if-else branch.
> > The change is purely cosmetic and changes no logic.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: William Hansen-Baird <william.hansen.baird@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 9 ++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> > index 842e95e1eaec..d470725a033f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> > @@ -946,6 +946,7 @@ static unsigned short rtw_parse_assoc_security_ies(struct adapter *padapter,
> >  	pstat->wpa_pairwise_cipher = 0;
> >  	pstat->wpa2_pairwise_cipher = 0;
> >  	memset(pstat->wpa_ie, 0, sizeof(pstat->wpa_ie));
> > +
> >  	if ((psecuritypriv->wpa_psk & BIT(1)) && elems->rsn_ie) {
> >  
> >  		int group_cipher = 0, pairwise_cipher = 0;
> 
> Why this line added?
> 
> > @@ -1016,17 +1017,15 @@ static unsigned short rtw_parse_assoc_security_ies(struct adapter *padapter,
> >  		}
> >  
> >  	} else {
> > -		int copy_len;
> > +		int copy_len = 0;
> >  
> >  		if (psecuritypriv->wpa_psk == 0) 
> >  			return WLAN_STATUS_INVALID_IE;
> >  
> > -		if (elems->wps_ie) {
> > +		if (elems->wps_ie)
> >  			pstat->flags |= WLAN_STA_WPS;
> > -			copy_len = 0;
> > -		} else {
> > +		else
> >  			copy_len = min_t(int, sizeof(pstat->wpa_ie), wpa_ie_len+2);
> > -		}
> >  
> >  		if (copy_len > 0)
> >  			memcpy(pstat->wpa_ie, wpa_ie-2, copy_len);
> 
> I feel like this is just polishing the code for no reason at all.  Why
> make this change at all?  What asked for it?
> 

The change was really only polishing. There wasn't an issue to solve and
it was mainly a stylistic choice on my part.

If you prefer, I can drop this patch and keep the original style.

Thanks,
William