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:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:52:14 -0700
From:   Chang Yu <marcus.yu.56@gmail.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net,
        phil@philpotter.co.uk, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into
 one
Message-ID: <YrVRDilTaAIVkpwV@zephyrus-g14.localdomain>
References: <20220623031515.402691-1-marcus.yu.56@gmail.com>
 <20220623051404.410632-1-marcus.yu.56@gmail.com>
 <YrQ2Izg1b399yJou@kroah.com>
 <YrUw3lejTP0UyWmt@zephyrus-g14.localdomain>
 <20220624053930.GU16517@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220624053930.GU16517@kadam>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 08:39:30AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:34:54PM -0700, Chang Yu wrote:
> > > - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed,
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. I checked the original patch
> > again and the subject and the body looks OK to me. I'm still a newbie so
> > I might have missed a couple of things. It would be greatly appreciated
> > if someone could point out what's missing.
> 
> What's the advantage of combining if statements?  Out of all the if
> statements in the kernel why did you pick that one?  Probably it's
> because the indenting was wrong, no?
> 
> Write the commit message like this:
> 
> [PATCH v3] staging: r8188eu: clean up if statement
> 
> I noticed that the if statement was strange and the code was indented
> too far.  It is cleaner to combine both if statements as well.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter

Understood. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I didn't realize the
description was too general. I simply assumed that the reason for
combining if statements is obvious and did not elaborate. I see now this
is not the right assumption to make. I will revise the patch shortly.

Thank you!

Best,
Chang