Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:47:12 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one | From | Philipp Hortmann <> |
| |
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
| |