[PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: code-style fix

[PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: code-style fix

[Kurt Manucredo]

Signed-off-by: Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches@protonmail.com>
---

Checkpatch complains the constant needs to be on the right side of the
comparison. The preferred way is: 

 drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
index 089c6ec19373..96feced698ac 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
@@ -2146,7 +2146,7 @@ void rtw_get_sec_iv(struct adapter *padapter, u8 *pcur_dot11txpn, u8 *StaAddr)
 	struct security_priv *psecpriv = &padapter->securitypriv;
 
 	memset(pcur_dot11txpn, 0, 8);
-	if (StaAddr == NULL)
+	if (!StaAddr)
 		return;
 	psta = rtw_get_stainfo(&padapter->stapriv, StaAddr);
 	DBG_871X("%s(): StaAddr: %02x %02x %02x %02x %02x %02x\n",
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: code-style fix

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 04:33:10PM +0000, Kurt Manucredo wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches@protonmail.com>
> ---
> 
> Checkpatch complains the constant needs to be on the right side of the
> comparison. The preferred way is: 
> 
>  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
> index 089c6ec19373..96feced698ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
> @@ -2146,7 +2146,7 @@ void rtw_get_sec_iv(struct adapter *padapter, u8 *pcur_dot11txpn, u8 *StaAddr)
>  	struct security_priv *psecpriv = &padapter->securitypriv;
>  
>  	memset(pcur_dot11txpn, 0, 8);
> -	if (StaAddr == NULL)
> +	if (!StaAddr)
>  		return;
>  	psta = rtw_get_stainfo(&padapter->stapriv, StaAddr);
>  	DBG_871X("%s(): StaAddr: %02x %02x %02x %02x %02x %02x\n",
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel@linuxdriverproject.org
> http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

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
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: code-style fix

[Dan Carpenter]

The subject is too vague.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 04:33:10PM +0000, Kurt Manucredo wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches@protonmail.com>
> ---
> 
> Checkpatch complains the constant needs to be on the right side of the
> comparison. The preferred way is: 
> 

The commit message isn't complete and it has to go above the Signed-off-by
line.

regards,
dan carpenter

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel