In the function rtl8188eu_hal_init() else after the return statement
of the if section is not useful. As if condition is true function will
return from if section, On the other case if condition is false
function will not return and statement after the if section will
execute, So there is no need to have else in this case. Remove the
else after a return statement of the if section.
Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c
index 94a2b3e32fe7..bea5d147b2a1 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c
@@ -687,10 +687,11 @@ u32 rtl8188eu_hal_init(struct adapter *Adapter)
Adapter->bFWReady = false;
haldata->fw_ractrl = false;
return status;
- } else {
- Adapter->bFWReady = true;
- haldata->fw_ractrl = false;
}
+
+ Adapter->bFWReady = true;
+ haldata->fw_ractrl = false;
+
rtl8188e_InitializeFirmwareVars(Adapter);
HAL_INIT_PROFILE_TAG(HAL_INIT_STAGES_MAC);
--
2.33.0
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 12:05:50AM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> In the function rtl8188eu_hal_init() else after the return statement
> of the if section is not useful. As if condition is true function will
> return from if section, On the other case if condition is false
> function will not return and statement after the if section will
> execute, So there is no need to have else in this case. Remove the
> else after a return statement of the if section.
>
> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
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 sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
applied in which order. Greg could just guess, but if you are
receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply.
Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.
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
On 01/11/21 6:31 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 12:05:50AM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>> In the function rtl8188eu_hal_init() else after the return statement
>> of the if section is not useful. As if condition is true function will
>> return from if section, On the other case if condition is false
>> function will not return and statement after the if section will
>> execute, So there is no need to have else in this case. Remove the
>> else after a return statement of the if section.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>
> 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 sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
> applied in which order. Greg could just guess, but if you are
> receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply.
> Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
> kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
> to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.
>
> 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>
Hi Greg,
I have send only one patch for usb_halinit.c.
However I have send another patch staging: r8188eu: hal: break after the return not useful
for another file HalPwrSeqCmd.c both are on same path drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/
Regards,
Saurav
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 12:53:33AM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>
>
> On 01/11/21 6:31 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 12:05:50AM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> >> In the function rtl8188eu_hal_init() else after the return statement
> >> of the if section is not useful. As if condition is true function will
> >> return from if section, On the other case if condition is false
> >> function will not return and statement after the if section will
> >> execute, So there is no need to have else in this case. Remove the
> >> else after a return statement of the if section.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c | 7 ++++---
> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > 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 sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
> > applied in which order. Greg could just guess, but if you are
> > receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply.
> > Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
> > kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
> > to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.
> >
> > 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>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I have send only one patch for usb_halinit.c.
> However I have send another patch staging: r8188eu: hal: break after the return not useful
> for another file HalPwrSeqCmd.c both are on same path drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/
That's great, but when you send multiple patches at once, you need to
send them as a patch series so they are applied in the correct order.
Please fix that up here and do so.
thanks,
greg k-h