On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:11:28 +0300
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.bez...@microchip.com> wrote:

> On 14.08.2018 09:50, Ajay Singh wrote:
> > Cleanup patch to avoid line over 80 chars checkpatch issue
> > introduced in previous code refactor commit.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ajay Singh <ajay.kat...@microchip.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c | 11 ++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c
> > b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c index 52402c3..041c9dd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c
> > @@ -199,19 +199,20 @@ static int
> > wilc_wlan_txq_filter_dup_tcp_ack(struct net_device *dev) unsigned
> > long flags; 
> >     spin_lock_irqsave(&wilc->txq_spinlock, flags);
> > -   for (i = f->pending_base; i < (f->pending_base +
> > f->pending_acks); i++) {
> > -           u32 session_index;
> > +   i = f->pending_base;  
> You could do it like this to avoid line over 80 chars checkpatch.pl
> warnings:
> 
>       for (i = f->pending_base;
>            i < (f->pending_base + f->pending_acks); i++) {
> 

Actually, I was not fully sure about the best approach to
handle this. :)

If the suggested is preferred approach our the over
previous one. I will include the suggestion and submit the updated
patch.


> > +   for (; i < (f->pending_base + f->pending_acks); i++) {
> > +           u32 index;
> >             u32 bigger_ack_num;
> >  
> >             if (i >= MAX_PENDING_ACKS)
> >                     break;
> >  
> > -           session_index =
> > f->pending_acks_info[i].session_index;
> > +           index = f->pending_acks_info[i].session_index;
> >  
> > -           if (session_index >= 2 * MAX_TCP_SESSION)
> > +           if (index >= 2 * MAX_TCP_SESSION)
> >                     break;
> >  
> > -           bigger_ack_num =
> > f->ack_session_info[session_index].bigger_ack_num;
> > +           bigger_ack_num =
> > f->ack_session_info[index].bigger_ack_num; 
> >             if (f->pending_acks_info[i].ack_num <
> > bigger_ack_num) { struct txq_entry_t *tqe;
> >   

Reply via email to