Return-path: Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:57892 "EHLO aserp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752587AbeEOJBg (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2018 05:01:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 12:01:12 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Ajay Singh Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, venkateswara.kaja@microchip.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ganesh.krishna@microchip.com, adham.abozaeid@microchip.com, aditya.shankar@microchip.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/30] staging: wilc1000: refactor del_station() to avoid parenthesis misalignment Message-ID: <20180515090112.fba2zkzsqd7j7ckq@mwanda> (sfid-20180515_110140_711079_31E7BB43) References: <1525682614-3824-1-git-send-email-ajay.kathat@microchip.com> <1525682614-3824-25-git-send-email-ajay.kathat@microchip.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1525682614-3824-25-git-send-email-ajay.kathat@microchip.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I feel sort of bad complaining about this patchset when your co-workers already nit picked it to death... :P On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 02:13:28PM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote: > Refactor the code to fix open parenthesis alignment issue reported by > checkpatch.pl script in del_station(). I no idea what an "open parenthesis alignment issue" is. It's sort of surprising because I deal with checkpatch patches a lot. > > Signed-off-by: Ajay Singh > --- > drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c > index 4600f4a..7f49d60 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c > @@ -1997,6 +1997,7 @@ static int del_station(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct net_device *dev, > s32 ret = 0; > struct wilc_priv *priv; > struct wilc_vif *vif; > + struct sta_info *info; > > if (!wiphy) > return -EFAULT; > @@ -2004,16 +2005,17 @@ static int del_station(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct net_device *dev, > priv = wiphy_priv(wiphy); > vif = netdev_priv(dev); > > - if (vif->iftype == AP_MODE || vif->iftype == GO_MODE) { > - if (!mac) > - ret = wilc_del_allstation(vif, > - priv->assoc_stainfo.sta_associated_bss); > + if (!(vif->iftype == AP_MODE || vif->iftype == GO_MODE)) I feel like this is better as: if (vif->iftype != AP_MODE && vif->iftype != GO_MODE) > + return ret; What is "ret" here? I haven't looked at this patch in context, but it's probably zero. Just return the literal. regards, dan carpenter