Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220403155111.GA333187@euclid> <ed0e9f7b-9ba9-b0c8-8261-397bf793b9b9@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ed0e9f7b-9ba9-b0c8-8261-397bf793b9b9@gmail.com>
From:   Sevinj Aghayeva <sevinj.aghayeva@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 3 Apr 2022 12:12:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMWRUK6K77KpRkCkruL=RQcmA1opbvapyPJOA-EFpYdXxY8ujQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: simplify control flow
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        outreachy@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Pavel,

On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 11:59 AM Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Sevinj,
>
> On 4/3/22 18:51, Sevinj Aghayeva wrote:
> > The function iterates an index from 0 to NUM_PMKID_CACHE and returns
> > the first index for which the condition is true. If no such index is
> > found, the function returns -1. Current code has a complex control
> > flow that obfuscates this simple task. Replace it with a loop.
> >
> > Also, given the shortened function body, replace the long variable
> > name psecuritypriv with a short variable name p.
> >
> > Reported by checkpatch:
> >
> > WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sevinj Aghayeva <sevinj.aghayeva@gmail.com>
> > ---
>
> [code snip]
>
> > +     for (i = 0; i < NUM_PMKID_CACHE; i++)
> > +             if ((p->PMKIDList[i].bUsed) &&
> > +                             (!memcmp(p->PMKIDList[i].Bssid, bssid, ETH_ALEN)))
> > +                     return i;
> > +     return -1;
> >   }
> >
> >   /*  */
>
> Looks good, but let's not introduce new checkpatch issue:
>
> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> #62: FILE: drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme.c:1645:
> +               if ((p->PMKIDList[i].bUsed) &&
> +                               (!memcmp(p->PMKIDList[i].Bssid, bssid, ETH_ALEN)))

Thanks for catching this. I wasn't seeing this in my checkpatch
output, and after some digging, I could reproduce it with --strict
option. I think the tutorial at
https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchPhilosophy doesn't mention this option,
so perhaps we should update it?!

>
>
>
>
> With regards,
> Pavel Skripkin


-- 

Sevinj.Aghayeva