On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:33:03PM +0100, Pascal Terjan wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 20:48, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > /* eth_type = (psnap_type[0] << 8) | psnap_type[1]; */ > > > - if ((!memcmp(psnap, rtw_rfc1042_header, SNAP_SIZE) && > > > - (memcmp(psnap_type, SNAP_ETH_TYPE_IPX, 2)) && > > > - (memcmp(psnap_type, SNAP_ETH_TYPE_APPLETALK_AARP, 2))) || > > > - /* eth_type != ETH_P_AARP && eth_type != ETH_P_IPX) || */ > > > - !memcmp(psnap, rtw_bridge_tunnel_header, SNAP_SIZE)) { > > > + if ((!memcmp(psnap, rfc1042_header, SNAP_SIZE) && > > > + memcmp(psnap_type, SNAP_ETH_TYPE_IPX, 2) && > > > + memcmp(psnap_type, SNAP_ETH_TYPE_APPLETALK_AARP, 2)) || > > > + /* eth_type != ETH_P_AARP && eth_type != ETH_P_IPX) || */ > > > + !memcmp(psnap, bridge_tunnel_header, SNAP_SIZE)) { > > > /* remove RFC1042 or Bridge-Tunnel encapsulation and replace EtherType */ > > > bsnaphdr = true; > > > > Your indenting is correct, but I would probably do that in a separate > > patch. It makes it harder to review. Also probably delete the > > commented out code. Do you see how if we don't touch the indenting then > > it doesn't raise the question about if we should delete the comments as > > well? > > I initially didn't want to change it but checkpatch was sad which > makes me sad, maybe I should have cleaned up this area in a first > trivial patch before touching that line. Just ignore checkpatch in this case because it's not a warning that your patch introduced. Say if you re-name a function, then you *must* re-indent the parameters because that's a warning the change introduces. If there is a checkpatch warning and it's on a line that you touch then you can change that. But once you start changing other nearby lines you might run into trouble. The other thing that you fixed is you removed unnecessary parentheses and that's good but it actually broke my review script for renaming variables. (Attached). I do `cat email.txt | rename_rev.pl -a` It's easier in mutt. regards, dan carpenter