Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:34:16 +0100
From:   Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com>,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com,
        daniel.baluta@gmail.com, hverkuil@xs4all.nl,
        Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_mlme: Remove
 unnecessary conditions
Message-ID: <20200312113416.23d3db5c@elisabeth>
In-Reply-To: <61a6c3d7-6592-b57b-6466-995309302cc2@linux.microsoft.com>
References: <20200311135859.5626-1-shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com>
        <61a6c3d7-6592-b57b-6466-995309302cc2@linux.microsoft.com>
Organization: Red Hat
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Lakshmi,

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:42:06 -0700
Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:

> On 3/11/2020 6:58 AM, Shreeya Patel wrote:
> 
> > Remove unnecessary if and else conditions since both are leading to the
> > initialization of "phtpriv->ampdu_enable" with the same value.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com>  
> 
> Stating this based on the patch descriptions I have seen.
> Others, please advise\correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Patch description should state the problem first[1] and then describe 
> how that is fixed in the given patch.
> 
> For example:
> 
> In the function rtw_update_ht_cap(), phtpriv->ampdu_enable is set to the 
> same value in both if and else statements.
> 
> This patch removes this unnecessary if-else statement.

That's my general preference as well, but I can't find any point in the
"Describe your changes" section of submitting-patches.rst actually
defining the order. I wouldn't imply that from the sequence the steps
are presented in.

In case it's possible to say everything with a single statement as
Shreeya did here, though, I guess that becomes rather a linguistic
factor, and I personally prefer the concise version here.

-- 
Stefano