Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: Replace comparison to false with !

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 02:13:49PM +0500, Mariyam Shahid wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 11:11 PM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:07:07PM +0500, Mariyam Shahid wrote:
> > > Replace comparisons to false with their logical negation
> > > to fix checkpatch warnings.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mariyam Shahid <mariyam.shahid135@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> > > index ebe73abab892..0192543cdec0 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> > > @@ -1013,10 +1013,10 @@ int rtw_check_beacon_data(struct adapter *padapter, u8 *pbuf,  int len)
> > >
> > >               rtw_ht_use_default_setting(padapter);
> > >
> > > -             if (pmlmepriv->htpriv.sgi_20m == false)
> > > +             if (!pmlmepriv->htpriv.sgi_20m)
> > >                       pht_cap->cap_info &= cpu_to_le16(~(IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SGI_20));
> > >
> > > -             if (pmlmepriv->htpriv.sgi_40m == false)
> > > +             if (!pmlmepriv->htpriv.sgi_40m)
> > >                       pht_cap->cap_info &= cpu_to_le16(~(IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SGI_40));
> > >
> > >               if (!TEST_FLAG(pmlmepriv->htpriv.ldpc_cap, LDPC_HT_ENABLE_RX))
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
> >
> > This doesn't apply to my tree as someone else sent this change before
> > you and I applied it, sorry.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Understood, thanks for letting me know.
> 
> Could you advise which tree I should be basing my staging patches on
> to avoid conflicts like this? I had been using the staging-next tree,
> but it seems changes accepted there aren't always reflected when
> someone else sends a similar patch first.
> 
> Should I be checking linux-next before submitting to make sure a fix
> hasn't already been applied or queued elsewhere?

Work against staging-next.

The other patch was probably sitting on the mailing list when you sent
yours.  It's not a big deal.

regards,
dan carpenter