From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751092AbaLOUyE (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:54:04 -0500 Received: from mail-qc0-f170.google.com ([209.85.216.170]:56757 "EHLO mail-qc0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750770AbaLOUyC (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:54:02 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:53:55 -0200 From: Eduardo Barretto To: Joe Perches Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: wlan-ng: hfa384x_usb: fixed an 'else' statement coding style issue Message-ID: <20141215205355.GA5831@archer> References: <1418608974-22509-1-git-send-email-edusbarretto@gmail.com> <1418609490.2674.7.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1418609490.2674.7.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thank you for the quick feedback. It was my first patch to the kernel and I wanted to be sure it would get right to the community. I'll be making a version two with the consideration you brought me. Thank you again, Best regards, Eduardo Barretto On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 06:11:30PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 00:02 -0200, Eduardo Barretto wrote: > > Fixed a coding style issue > [] > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x_usb.c b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x_usb.c > [] > > @@ -4123,12 +4123,11 @@ static int hfa384x_isgood_pdrcode(u16 pdrcode) > > pr_debug("Encountered unknown PDR#=0x%04x, assuming it's ok.\n", > > pdrcode); > > return 1; > > - } else { > > - /* bad code */ > > - pr_debug("Encountered unknown PDR#=0x%04x, (>=0x1000), assuming it's bad.\n", > > - pdrcode); > > - return 0; > > } > > + /* bad code */ > > + pr_debug("Encountered unknown PDR#=0x%04x, (>=0x1000), assuming it's bad.\n", > > + pdrcode); > > + return 0; > > } > > return 0; /* avoid compiler warnings */ > > } > > While this patch isn't necessary, if any change is > done, it might better to not have two consecutive > return 0; uses. > >