Checkpatch emits CHECK: Unbalanced braces around else
statement. Statements in question are single statements so we do not
need braces. Checkpatch also warns about multiple line dereference for
this code.
Fix if/else/else if statement use of braces. Fix function argument layout
at the same time since it is the same statement.
Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <m...@tobin.cc>
---
drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c
b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c
index db10e16..68e26f4 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c
@@ -2456,19 +2456,15 @@ void hostif_sme_execute(struct ks_wlan_private *priv,
int event)
hostif_phy_information_request(priv);
break;
case SME_MIC_FAILURE_REQUEST:
- if (priv->wpa.mic_failure.failure == 1) {
- hostif_mic_failure_request(priv,
- priv->wpa.mic_failure.
- failure - 1, 0);
- } else if (priv->wpa.mic_failure.failure == 2) {
- hostif_mic_failure_request(priv,
- priv->wpa.mic_failure.
- failure - 1,
- priv->wpa.mic_failure.
- counter);
- } else
- DPRINTK(4,
- "SME_MIC_FAILURE_REQUEST: failure count=%u
error?\n",
+ if (priv->wpa.mic_failure.failure == 1)
+ hostif_mic_failure_request(
+ priv, priv->wpa.mic_failure.failure - 1, 0);
+ else if (priv->wpa.mic_failure.failure == 2)
+ hostif_mic_failure_request(
+ priv, priv->wpa.mic_failure.failure - 1,
+ priv->wpa.mic_failure.counter);
+ else
+ DPRINTK(4, "SME_MIC_FAILURE_REQUEST: failure count=%u
error?\n",
priv->wpa.mic_failure.failure);
break;
case SME_MIC_FAILURE_CONFIRM:
--
2.7.4
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
