Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:35760 "EHLO mail-qk0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757399AbbLBPNB (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:13:01 -0500 Received: by qkao63 with SMTP id o63so17119583qka.2 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 07:13:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] staging: cleanup: Fix incompatible type comparison in wilc1000/host_interface.c To: Dan Carpenter References: <1448928544-3534-1-git-send-email-mrugiero@gmail.com> <20151202132923.GV18797@mwanda> Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, chris.park@atmel.com, austin.shin@atmel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, johnny.kim@atmel.com, tony.cho@atmel.com, leo.kim@atmel.com From: "Mario J. Rugiero" Message-ID: <565F0A79.90100@gmail.com> (sfid-20151202_161305_836098_9F7C309D) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:12:57 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151202132923.GV18797@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: OK. Since the maintainers are CC'd, I guess I should wait for a clarification about this? El 02/12/15 a las 10:29, Dan Carpenter escribi?: > Put v2 in the subject. Also the subsystem prefix is: > > [PATCH v3] staging: wilc1000: ... > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:09:04PM -0300, Mario J. Rugiero wrote: >> This patch replaces an "if (ptr > 0)" comparison that seems to be a >> confusing way to check for null by a simpler "if (ptr)" check. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mario J. Rugiero >> --- > v2: Remove the != NULL because checkpatch complains. > >> drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c >> index d5b7725..0c87f6c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c >> @@ -2270,7 +2270,7 @@ static void Handle_AddBeacon(struct host_if_drv *hif_drv, >> *pu8CurrByte++ = ((pstrSetBeaconParam->tail_len >> 16) & 0xFF); >> *pu8CurrByte++ = ((pstrSetBeaconParam->tail_len >> 24) & 0xFF); >> >> - if (pstrSetBeaconParam->tail > 0) >> + if (pstrSetBeaconParam->tail) > Probably the intention was to check if "pstrSetBeaconParam->tail_len > 0" > but I'm not sure. The wilc1000 maintainers are very responsive though > so maybe they will know for sure. > > regards, > dan carpenter > >