From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FED6C43334 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 05:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229798AbiFXFrR (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2022 01:47:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36978 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229451AbiFXFrP (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2022 01:47:15 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x62b.google.com (mail-ej1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C61B269A9E for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id sb34so2453043ejc.11 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:47:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=abZ/yTYs0ZwLRlsQiZNgXIB/kfxOpHs4jVotD4dmbgw=; b=gZIdoDgHmaxSVYNIVrQhhqeqMbOFxuBGIGTazSY1poz6u4oFVnujKzefwOPJYJuOqk YIKizMhO+vYAGoJcn+m4og7xvq2rjrHnPYfOkmuQvSuLxSI8RDssKaKscuYBPTCn1zTe 43UjG42vDRIRWJQYRVDsobPy3vi65PU/TE2nHw7qEh3QvQUDprom1hkSY8OtgNY1U4F0 9i8AGAF2HBs+YS9OQZdhNul8m2KKEzSPQ7Ypdam1LnSMPhhBDvINtxWAympsCVR5TEBS BCBA3LKQaKf14XQp59dw6Y/VyQ3t98e4bjOg2FA1KT9F3dqQ5F4X+/kgbXVm/AJVQ9vW 6Diw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=abZ/yTYs0ZwLRlsQiZNgXIB/kfxOpHs4jVotD4dmbgw=; b=S4doQslaQlLEF1aHvVNsXxRVULlXnBUY/wMnAMpuQ54vvtKMGzcgzjvr11U/+xn7zU c9ZgnDGSSSN/DDsmqpYVOY6+OikC2QGJgk6NFIWQowVSiO0G6s9zF14ybHDV6xd7Ai/w mh4xzmofkw+6epzhIo2bBr6bnCCVJlxeM5FN+CQhRUOIzU1iqrVFd5VbLclwcI5Jy1ER b+iNCo5L2z1Z7TU7/tSMCuiiBbcp/c1gONLdQRXDDOp112TAbomIMeTDWoad87ETwJAe uGaf+KQKm+8QyyDvGS9qpZ+FiNYpnhocPLFtkGoIh9XW5K6r7TCLHdU4BCwrUgerY6ON 20RQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/huhZC93Z/yCXtjcyEfp+k0fFwxgMR4WUc1elQ5aTugjvJSjua tUfWEmb61N0vQ+ZoUcRQ5LkhD7N0jow= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tzgdT7WzRgqABYFO31+RZTzcofzQVtDoQev2UpD1fM2a6nTQiKyGPjZDvNGjZikqWSnDI2AA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3c07:b0:718:e1a7:b834 with SMTP id h7-20020a1709063c0700b00718e1a7b834mr11467688ejg.635.1656049633376; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:c7:8f2e:6903:8f42:a6e8:b267:63e? (p200300c78f2e69038f42a6e8b267063e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:c7:8f2e:6903:8f42:a6e8:b267:63e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jz27-20020a17090775fb00b006fecf74395bsm544100ejc.8.2022.06.23.22.47.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4e0d3b62-ceb4-5848-446f-6552ab16f852@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:47:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one Content-Language: en-US To: Chang Yu , Greg KH Cc: Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, phil@philpotter.co.uk, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20220623031515.402691-1-marcus.yu.56@gmail.com> <20220623051404.410632-1-marcus.yu.56@gmail.com> From: Philipp Hortmann In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >>> --- >>> 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