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;
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:02:58 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>
cc:     Mahak Gupta <mahak_g@cs.iitr.ac.in>, Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net,
        phil@philpotter.co.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        outreachy@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove else after return and break
 statements
In-Reply-To: <4946ce95-8692-b765-b5ea-ab4b521182fc@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204131102300.3470@hadrien>
References: <20220413052759.4859-1-mahak_g@cs.iitr.ac.in> <4946ce95-8692-b765-b5ea-ab4b521182fc@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 13 Apr 2022, Pavel Skripkin wrote:

> Hi Mahak,
>
> On 4/13/22 08:27, Mahak Gupta wrote:
> > Else is not necessary after return and break statements, hence remove
> > it.
> >
> > Reported by checkpatch:
> >
> > WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mahak Gupta <mahak_g@cs.iitr.ac.in>
>
> [snip]
>
> > -	}
> > +	/*  could be pure B, pure G, or B/G */
> > +	if (rtw_is_cckratesonly_included(rate))
> > +		return WIRELESS_11B;
> > +	else if (rtw_is_cckrates_included(rate))
> > +		return	WIRELESS_11BG;
> > +	else
> > +		return WIRELESS_11G;
>
> This 'else' is after 'return' as well, isn't it? Just wondering what's the
> difference between this one and others in this patch

Maybe it's nice to have the three options lined up?

julia