[PATCH RESEND] staging: rtl8723bs: fix comparison to false

[PATCH RESEND] staging: rtl8723bs: fix comparison to false

[Akhil Boyapati]

Replace '== false' with '!' operator for boolean test
to adhere to Linux kernel coding style.

Reported by checkpatch:
CHECK: Using comparison to false is error prone

RESEND adding cc to linux-staging@lists.linux.dev

Signed-off-by: Akhil Boyapati <boyakhil978@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 864cd8b6d1f1..8f18175175ee 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))
-- 
2.53.0

Re: [PATCH RESEND] staging: rtl8723bs: fix comparison to false

[Luka Gejak]

On Wed Apr 8, 2026 at 7:38 PM CEST, Akhil Boyapati wrote:
> Replace '== false' with '!' operator for boolean test
> to adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
>
> Reported by checkpatch:
> CHECK: Using comparison to false is error prone
>
> RESEND adding cc to linux-staging@lists.linux.dev
This should be resent as v2 if any change is present. You should only 
use RESEND if you don't edit context of email at all. Also such 
messages for changes should go under --- as everything above is commit 
message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Akhil Boyapati <boyakhil978@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 864cd8b6d1f1..8f18175175ee 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))
Hi Akhil,
I am also wondering why did you decide to resend the patch as it 
impplies it was sent somewhere else, but I don't see it anywhere on 
mailing list. Did you send it only to Greg?

Re: [PATCH RESEND] staging: rtl8723bs: fix comparison to false

[Akhil]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 03:41:06PM +0200, Luka Gejak wrote:
> Hi Akhil,
> I am also wondering why did you decide to resend the patch as it 
> impplies it was sent somewhere else, but I don't see it anywhere on 
> mailing list. Did you send it only to Greg?
Yes, I accidentally only sent it to Greg, I realised this and resent it
before I could get the response from Greg's bot. The content of the
patch is exactly the same.

It took me some time for this reply as I was understanding the correct method to reply, let me know if anything can be improved.

Re: [PATCH RESEND] staging: rtl8723bs: fix comparison to false

[Luka Gejak]

On April 9, 2026 11:20:19 PM GMT+02:00, Akhil <boyakhil978@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 03:41:06PM +0200, Luka Gejak wrote:
>> Hi Akhil,
>> I am also wondering why did you decide to resend the patch as it 
>> impplies it was sent somewhere else, but I don't see it anywhere on 
>> mailing list. Did you send it only to Greg?
>Yes, I accidentally only sent it to Greg, I realised this and resent it
>before I could get the response from Greg's bot. The content of the
>patch is exactly the same.
>
>It took me some time for this reply as I was understanding the correct method to reply, let me know if anything can be improved.

This should be resent as v2, because I'm sure you didn't include 
"RESEND adding cc to linux-staging@lists.linux.dev" in original email.
You should only use RESEND if you don't edit context of email at all. 
Also such messages for changes (as "RESEND adding cc to 
linux-staging@lists.linux.dev") should go under --- as everything 
above is part of the commit message.