All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Remove useless else
@ 2020-10-29  6:59 Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
  2020-10-29  7:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho @ 2020-10-29  6:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Forest Bond, Greg Kroah-Hartman, outreachy-kernel

The else statement is not useful due to the presence of a return
statement on the if block. Remove the else statement and adjust the
indentation of the code. Reported by checkpatch.

Signed-off-by: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho <mdejesusfilho@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
index 477d19314634..978efe81077a 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
@@ -519,28 +519,28 @@ s_uFillDataHead(
 										wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
 			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
 			return buf->duration;
-		} else {
-			struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
-			/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
-			vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
-					  byPktType, &buf->ab);
+		}
 
-			if (is_pspoll) {
-				__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
+		struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
+		/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
+		vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
+				  byPktType, &buf->ab);
 
-				buf->duration = dur;
-			} else {
-				/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
-				buf->duration =
-					cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
-									    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
-									    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
-									    byFBOption));
-			}
+		if (is_pspoll) {
+			__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
 
-			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
-			return buf->duration;
+			buf->duration = dur;
+		} else {
+			/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
+			buf->duration =
+				cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
+								    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
+								    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
+								    byFBOption));
 		}
+
+		buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
+		return buf->duration;
 	} else {
 		struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
 		/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
-- 
2.28.0



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Remove useless else
  2020-10-29  6:59 [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Remove useless else Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
@ 2020-10-29  7:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
  2020-10-29  8:09   ` Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2020-10-29  7:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho; +Cc: Forest Bond, outreachy-kernel

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:59:58PM -0700, Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho wrote:
> The else statement is not useful due to the presence of a return
> statement on the if block. Remove the else statement and adjust the
> indentation of the code. Reported by checkpatch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho <mdejesusfilho@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> index 477d19314634..978efe81077a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> @@ -519,28 +519,28 @@ s_uFillDataHead(
>  										wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
>  			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
>  			return buf->duration;
> -		} else {
> -			struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> -			/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
> -			vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
> -					  byPktType, &buf->ab);
> +		}
>  
> -			if (is_pspoll) {
> -				__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
> +		struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> +		/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
> +		vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
> +				  byPktType, &buf->ab);
>  
> -				buf->duration = dur;
> -			} else {
> -				/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
> -				buf->duration =
> -					cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> -									    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> -									    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
> -									    byFBOption));
> -			}
> +		if (is_pspoll) {
> +			__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
>  
> -			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> -			return buf->duration;
> +			buf->duration = dur;
> +		} else {
> +			/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
> +			buf->duration =
> +				cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> +								    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> +								    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
> +								    byFBOption));
>  		}
> +
> +		buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> +		return buf->duration;
>  	} else {

You do the same thing here, right?  Shouldn't this else be dropped?

thanks,

greg k-h


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Remove useless else
  2020-10-29  7:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2020-10-29  8:09   ` Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
  2020-10-30  6:12     ` Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho @ 2020-10-29  8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Forest Bond, outreachy-kernel

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:07:23AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:59:58PM -0700, Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho wrote:
> > The else statement is not useful due to the presence of a return
> > statement on the if block. Remove the else statement and adjust the
> > indentation of the code. Reported by checkpatch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho <mdejesusfilho@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > index 477d19314634..978efe81077a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > @@ -519,28 +519,28 @@ s_uFillDataHead(
> >  										wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> >  			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> >  			return buf->duration;
> > -		} else {
> > -			struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> > -			/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
> > -			vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
> > -					  byPktType, &buf->ab);
> > +		}
> >  
> > -			if (is_pspoll) {
> > -				__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
> > +		struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> > +		/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
> > +		vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
> > +				  byPktType, &buf->ab);
> >  
> > -				buf->duration = dur;
> > -			} else {
> > -				/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
> > -				buf->duration =
> > -					cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> > -									    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> > -									    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
> > -									    byFBOption));
> > -			}
> > +		if (is_pspoll) {
> > +			__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
> >  
> > -			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> > -			return buf->duration;
> > +			buf->duration = dur;
> > +		} else {
> > +			/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
> > +			buf->duration =
> > +				cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> > +								    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> > +								    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
> > +								    byFBOption));
> >  		}
> > +
> > +		buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> > +		return buf->duration;
> >  	} else {
> 
> You do the same thing here, right?  Shouldn't this else be dropped?

Definitely. I did not do it because we are instructed to solve one 'Warning' at time. I was going to do it in another patch.
Should I edit this patch and fix it now?
 
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Remove useless else
  2020-10-29  8:09   ` Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
@ 2020-10-30  6:12     ` Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
  2020-10-30  7:12       ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho @ 2020-10-30  6:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Forest Bond, outreachy-kernel

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 01:09:45AM -0700, Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:07:23AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:59:58PM -0700, Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho wrote:
> > > The else statement is not useful due to the presence of a return
> > > statement on the if block. Remove the else statement and adjust the
> > > indentation of the code. Reported by checkpatch.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho <mdejesusfilho@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > > index 477d19314634..978efe81077a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > > @@ -519,28 +519,28 @@ s_uFillDataHead(
> > >  										wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> > >  			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> > >  			return buf->duration;
> > > -		} else {
> > > -			struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> > > -			/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
> > > -			vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
> > > -					  byPktType, &buf->ab);
> > > +		}
> > >  
> > > -			if (is_pspoll) {
> > > -				__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
> > > +		struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> > > +		/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
> > > +		vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
> > > +				  byPktType, &buf->ab);
> > >  
> > > -				buf->duration = dur;
> > > -			} else {
> > > -				/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
> > > -				buf->duration =
> > > -					cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> > > -									    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> > > -									    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
> > > -									    byFBOption));
> > > -			}
> > > +		if (is_pspoll) {
> > > +			__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
> > >  
> > > -			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> > > -			return buf->duration;
> > > +			buf->duration = dur;
> > > +		} else {
> > > +			/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
> > > +			buf->duration =
> > > +				cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> > > +								    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> > > +								    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
> > > +								    byFBOption));
> > >  		}
> > > +
> > > +		buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> > > +		return buf->duration;
> > >  	} else {
> > 
> > You do the same thing here, right?  Shouldn't this else be dropped?
> 
> Definitely. I did not do it because we are instructed to solve one 'Warning' at time. I was going to do it in another patch.
> Should I edit this patch and fix it now?
>  
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h

I notice that after removing the else statement I get the compilation error "ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code", because we eliminate the scope of the else block. Should I leave as it is?   


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Remove useless else
  2020-10-30  6:12     ` Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
@ 2020-10-30  7:12       ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2020-10-30  7:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho; +Cc: Forest Bond, outreachy-kernel

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:12:29PM -0700, Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 01:09:45AM -0700, Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:07:23AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:59:58PM -0700, Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho wrote:
> > > > The else statement is not useful due to the presence of a return
> > > > statement on the if block. Remove the else statement and adjust the
> > > > indentation of the code. Reported by checkpatch.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho <mdejesusfilho@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++------------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > > > index 477d19314634..978efe81077a 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > > > @@ -519,28 +519,28 @@ s_uFillDataHead(
> > > >  										wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> > > >  			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> > > >  			return buf->duration;
> > > > -		} else {
> > > > -			struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> > > > -			/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
> > > > -			vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
> > > > -					  byPktType, &buf->ab);
> > > > +		}
> > > >  
> > > > -			if (is_pspoll) {
> > > > -				__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
> > > > +		struct vnt_tx_datahead_ab *buf = pTxDataHead;
> > > > +		/* Get SignalField, ServiceField & Length */
> > > > +		vnt_get_phy_field(pDevice, cbFrameLength, wCurrentRate,
> > > > +				  byPktType, &buf->ab);
> > > >  
> > > > -				buf->duration = dur;
> > > > -			} else {
> > > > -				/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
> > > > -				buf->duration =
> > > > -					cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> > > > -									    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> > > > -									    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
> > > > -									    byFBOption));
> > > > -			}
> > > > +		if (is_pspoll) {
> > > > +			__le16 dur = cpu_to_le16(pDevice->current_aid | BIT(14) | BIT(15));
> > > >  
> > > > -			buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> > > > -			return buf->duration;
> > > > +			buf->duration = dur;
> > > > +		} else {
> > > > +			/* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
> > > > +			buf->duration =
> > > > +				cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> > > > +								    wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> > > > +								    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
> > > > +								    byFBOption));
> > > >  		}
> > > > +
> > > > +		buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> > > > +		return buf->duration;
> > > >  	} else {
> > > 
> > > You do the same thing here, right?  Shouldn't this else be dropped?
> > 
> > Definitely. I did not do it because we are instructed to solve one 'Warning' at time. I was going to do it in another patch.
> > Should I edit this patch and fix it now?
> >  
> > > 
> > > thanks,
> > > 
> > > greg k-h
> 
> I notice that after removing the else statement I get the compilation error "ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code", because we eliminate the scope of the else block. Should I leave as it is?   

You can not add build warnings to the kernel, so fix this up in a patch
series where you do one step at a time, and keep everything building
properly at each patch.

thanks,

greg k-h


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-10-30  7:11 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-10-29  6:59 [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Remove useless else Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
2020-10-29  7:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-10-29  8:09   ` Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
2020-10-30  6:12     ` Marcos Antonio de Jesus Filho
2020-10-30  7:12       ` Greg Kroah-Hartman

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.