Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8192u: removed an unnecessary else statement

[karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>]

On 12/19/2014 04:08 AM, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
> Karthik,
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:50:11PM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> 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/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c | 16 +++++++---------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
>> index 936565d..b3b508c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
>> @@ -480,15 +480,13 @@ static void dm_bandwidth_autoswitch(struct net_device *dev)
>>   
>>   	if(priv->CurrentChannelBW == HT_CHANNEL_WIDTH_20 ||!priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bautoswitch_enable){
>>   		return;
>> -	}else{
>> -		if(priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz == false){//If send packets in 40 Mhz in 20/40
>> -			if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb <= priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_40Mhzto20Mhz)
>> -				priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = true;
>> -		}else{//in force send packets in 20 Mhz in 20/40
>> -			if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb >= priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_20Mhzto40Mhz)
>> -				priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = false;
>> -
>> -		}
>> +	}
>> +	if(priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz == false){//If send packets in 40 Mhz in 20/40
>> +		if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb <= priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_40Mhzto20Mhz)
>> +			priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = true;
>> +	}else{//in force send packets in 20 Mhz in 20/40
>> +		if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb >= priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_20Mhzto40Mhz)
>> +			priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = false;
>>   	}
>>   }	// dm_BandwidthAutoSwitch
>>   
> [...]
>
> Wow, I don't think I have ever seen a file with so many checkpatch errors!
>
> Instead of only fixing one instance of one error I would fix all
> instances of that type of error.  Since the changes would be very
> similar it should still be easy to review.
>
> You could even make a whole patch series with each patch fixing one type
> of error.  Although I would keep the series to just a few at first until
> you are sure you are doing everything right.
>
Hello Jeremiah,
I agree, there are a lot of errors, so I fixed a single issue.
This is just to get used to checkpatch system.
I can write patches to fix the other things, but I rather not.
I hope you get the point.
Regards
Karthik Nayak