On 12/19/2014 04:08 AM, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
Karthik,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:50:11PM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
As per checkpatch warning, removed an unnecessary else statement
proceeding an if statement with a return.
Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik....@gmail.com>
---
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c | 16 +++++++---------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
index 936565d..b3b508c 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_dm.c
@@ -480,15 +480,13 @@ static void dm_bandwidth_autoswitch(struct net_device
*dev)
if(priv->CurrentChannelBW == HT_CHANNEL_WIDTH_20 ||!priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bautoswitch_enable){
return;
- }else{
- if(priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz ==
false){//If send packets in 40 Mhz in 20/40
- if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb <=
priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_40Mhzto20Mhz)
-
priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = true;
- }else{//in force send packets in 20 Mhz in 20/40
- if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb >=
priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_20Mhzto40Mhz)
-
priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz = false;
-
- }
+ }
+ if(priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz ==
false){//If send packets in 40 Mhz in 20/40
+ if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb <=
priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_40Mhzto20Mhz)
+ priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz
= true;
+ }else{//in force send packets in 20 Mhz in 20/40
+ if(priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb >=
priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.threshold_20Mhzto40Mhz)
+ priv->ieee80211->bandwidth_auto_switch.bforced_tx20Mhz
= false;
}
} // dm_BandwidthAutoSwitch
[...]
Wow, I don't think I have ever seen a file with so many checkpatch errors!
Instead of only fixing one instance of one error I would fix all
instances of that type of error. Since the changes would be very
similar it should still be easy to review.
You could even make a whole patch series with each patch fixing one type
of error. Although I would keep the series to just a few at first until
you are sure you are doing everything right.
Hello Jeremiah,
I agree, there are a lot of errors, so I fixed a single issue.
This is just to get used to checkpatch system.
I can write patches to fix the other things, but I rather not.
I hope you get the point.
Regards
Karthik Nayak
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
