Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-190019-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <e25831a9-9913-43da-831b-d37bdc4d9dd3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 06:36:33 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: rtl8192e: remove dead code
To: Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com,
 linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240526111928.14574-1-straube.linux@gmail.com>
 <20240526111928.14574-4-straube.linux@gmail.com>
 <20240526143100.FmVupNWq@linutronix.de>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Michael Straube <straube.linux@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240526143100.FmVupNWq@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Am 26.05.24 um 16:31 schrieb Nam Cao:
> 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?

Ah yes, I had not thought about that. Thanks for pointing out.
I'll have a closer look and resend the series. Either without this patch
or, if it's safe to remove, state it in the commit message.

Thanks,
Michael