Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-189751-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 16:31:00 +0200
From: Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de>
To: Michael Straube <straube.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com,
	linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: rtl8192e: remove dead code
Message-ID: <20240526143100.FmVupNWq@linutronix.de>
References: <20240526111928.14574-1-straube.linux@gmail.com>
 <20240526111928.14574-4-straube.linux@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240526111928.14574-4-straube.linux@gmail.com>

On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 01:19:28PM +0200, Michael Straube wrote:
> Remove two else-if arms that do nothing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Straube <straube.linux@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c
> index 5392d2daf870..4e03eb100175 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c
> @@ -1370,9 +1370,6 @@ static void _rtl92e_dm_rx_path_sel_byrssi(struct net_device *dev)
>  					tmp_sec_rssi = cur_rf_rssi;
>  					sec_rssi_index = i;
>  				}
> -			} else if ((cur_rf_rssi < tmp_sec_rssi) &&
> -					(cur_rf_rssi > tmp_min_rssi)) {
> -				;
>  			} else if (cur_rf_rssi == tmp_min_rssi) {
>  				if (tmp_sec_rssi == tmp_min_rssi) {
>  					tmp_min_rssi = cur_rf_rssi;
> @@ -1426,9 +1423,6 @@ static void _rtl92e_dm_rx_path_sel_byrssi(struct net_device *dev)
>  						tmp_cck_sec_pwdb = cur_cck_pwdb;
>  						cck_rx_ver2_sec_index = i;
>  					}
> -				} else if ((cur_cck_pwdb < tmp_cck_sec_pwdb) &&
> -						(cur_cck_pwdb > tmp_cck_min_pwdb)) {
> -					;
>  				} else if (cur_cck_pwdb == tmp_cck_min_pwdb) {
>  					if (tmp_cck_sec_pwdb == tmp_cck_min_pwdb)
>  						tmp_cck_min_pwdb = cur_cck_pwdb;

I would be careful with these changes. These else-if do prevent the
execution of the other else-if, so the code do not behave the same anymore.

The only case this patch doesn't change anything functionally is when the
condition of the removed if-else is mutually exclusive with the conditions
of the following if-else. Are you sure this is the case?

Best regards,
Nam