Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one

[Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com>]

On 6/24/22 05:34, Chang Yu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:45:07AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:14:04PM -0700, Chang Yu wrote:
>>> Combine two nested if statements into a single one
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chang Yu <marcus.yu.56@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> Added a pair of parentheses to make operator precedence explicit.
>>>
>>>   drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c | 6 ++----
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
>>> index 6564e82ddd66..020bc212532f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
>>> @@ -166,10 +166,8 @@ int rtw_free_recvframe(struct recv_frame *precvframe, struct __queue *pfree_recv
>>>   
>>>   	list_add_tail(&precvframe->list, get_list_head(pfree_recv_queue));
>>>   
>>> -	if (padapter) {
>>> -		if (pfree_recv_queue == &precvpriv->free_recv_queue)
>>> -				precvpriv->free_recvframe_cnt++;
>>> -	}
>>> +	if (padapter && (pfree_recv_queue == &precvpriv->free_recv_queue))
>>> +		precvpriv->free_recvframe_cnt++;
>>>   
>>>   	spin_unlock_bh(&pfree_recv_queue->lock);
>>>   
>>> -- 
>>> 2.36.1
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
>> a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
>> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
>> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
>> created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
>> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
>> kernel tree.
>>
>> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
>> as indicated below:
>>
>> - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
>>    possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
>>    section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
>>    Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
>>    properly describe the change.
>>
>> - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
>>    and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
>>    the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
>>    Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
>>    look like.
>>
>> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
>> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
>> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
>> from other developers.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h's patch email bot
> 
> I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. I checked the original patch
> again and the subject and the body looks OK to me. I'm still a newbie so
> I might have missed a couple of things. It would be greatly appreciated
> if someone could point out what's missing.
> 

description:
You wrote what you did in the description. Even when the why can be 
likely answered as well it is not sufficient for Greg K-H.

I propose something like:
Combine two nested if statements into a single one to increase readability.

Or

Combine two nested if statements into a single one to shorten code.

subject:
I am guessing. The subject could may be remain but I think it is to 
general. Please consider that we can have multiple of this subjects what 
is not good. How to know which patch is which?

I propose something like:
staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements in function xxxx

Or

staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements in file xxxx


But consider that the patches that were accepted do also have a not so 
specific subject. The description was very clear about the "why". There 
the reason was always checkpatch.

Bye Philipp