[PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: removed an unnecessary else statement

[PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: removed an unnecessary else statement

[Karthik Nayak]

As per checkpatch warning, removed an unnecessary else statement
proceeding an if statement with a return.

Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
index cd8b444..800b2b3 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
@@ -496,8 +496,7 @@ static int enqueue_reorder_recvframe(struct recv_reorder_ctrl *preorder_ctrl,
 			plist = plist->next;
 		else if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num))
 			return false;
-		else
-			break;
+		break;
 	}
 	list_del_init(&(prframe->u.hdr.list));
 	list_add_tail(&(prframe->u.hdr.list), plist);
-- 
2.1.3

Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: removed an unnecessary else statement

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 20:55 +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> As per checkpatch warning, removed an unnecessary else statement
> proceeding an if statement with a return.

This is not a correct change.
The checkpatch message said "generally".
You still have to verify the code.

> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
> index cd8b444..800b2b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
> @@ -496,8 +496,7 @@ static int enqueue_reorder_recvframe(struct recv_reorder_ctrl *preorder_ctrl,
>  			plist = plist->next;
>  		else if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num))
>  			return false;
> -		else
> -			break;
> +		break;


It's not the same logic.
It would be if the code was:

	while (end_of_queue_search(phead, plist) == false) {
		pnextrframe = LIST_CONTAINOR(plist, union recv_frame, u);
		pnextattrib = &pnextrframe->u.hdr.attrib;
		if (SN_LESS(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num)) {
			plist = plist->next;
			continue;
		} else if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num)) {
			return false;
		}
		break;
	}

But that's not necessary.

Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: removed an unnecessary else statement

[Larry Finger]

On 12/15/2014 10:39 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 20:55 +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> As per checkpatch warning, removed an unnecessary else statement
>> proceeding an if statement with a return.
>
> This is not a correct change.
> The checkpatch message said "generally".
> You still have to verify the code.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
>> index cd8b444..800b2b3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_recv.c
>> @@ -496,8 +496,7 @@ static int enqueue_reorder_recvframe(struct recv_reorder_ctrl *preorder_ctrl,
>>   			plist = plist->next;
>>   		else if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num))
>>   			return false;
>> -		else
>> -			break;
>> +		break;
>
>
> It's not the same logic.
> It would be if the code was:
>
> 	while (end_of_queue_search(phead, plist) == false) {
> 		pnextrframe = LIST_CONTAINOR(plist, union recv_frame, u);
> 		pnextattrib = &pnextrframe->u.hdr.attrib;
> 		if (SN_LESS(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num)) {
> 			plist = plist->next;
> 			continue;
> 		} else if (SN_EQUAL(pnextattrib->seq_num, pattrib->seq_num)) {
> 			return false;
> 		}
> 		break;
> 	}
>
> But that's not necessary.

I have almost been tripped by this warning when the code said

	if (...) {
		.......
	} else if (...) {
		.......
		return;
	} else {
		.......
	}

Perhaps checkpatch should ignore setting this warning when there is an "else if" 
in the flow.

Larry

Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: removed an unnecessary else statement

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 11:12 -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 10:39 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 20:55 +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> >> As per checkpatch warning, removed an unnecessary else statement
> >> proceeding an if statement with a return.
> >
> > This is not a correct change.
> > The checkpatch message said "generally".
> > You still have to verify the code.
[]
> Perhaps checkpatch should ignore setting this warning when there is an "else if" 
> in the flow.

In a patch, that's not possible as the
context may not show the flow.