Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:38:19 -0800 | From | Jeremiah Mahler <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8192u: removed an unnecessary else statement |
| |
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.
-- - Jeremiah Mahler
| |