Re: [PATCH v3] staging: vt6655: refactor camelcase uCurrRSSI to current_rssi

[Your Name]

> What caused you to pick that one?

My mistake :(

I was reading "Submitting patches: the essential guide
to getting your code into the kernel" and I was confuse dby this line
"See the T: entry for the subsystem in the MAINTAINERS file to find 
that tree, or simply ask the maintainer if the tree is not listed
there." supposing that master branch was the correct one.

I'm moving on "staging-next" branch as you suggest.

Regards,

Alberto
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs/core fix brace coding style issues in rtw_recv.c

[YOUR NAME]

On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 09:41:16AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 04:00:43PM -0600, Brother Matthew De Angelis wrote:
> > Fix all the brace code style warnings found by checkpatch.pl at the
> > following lines:
> > 748, 940, 1039, 1602, 1922, 1939.
> > At line 940 add a semi-colon to specify a line that does not execute
> > anything, as in Kernighan and Ritchie
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Brother Matthew De Angelis 
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c | 20 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c 
> > b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> > index 43e67e48d2df..22030fe6e714 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> > @@ -745,9 +745,8 @@ void count_rx_stats(struct adapter *padapter, union 
> > recv_frame *prframe, struct
> >  
> > padapter->mlmepriv.LinkDetectInfo.NumRxOkInPeriod++;
> >  
> > -   if ((!MacAddr_isBcst(pattrib->dst)) && (!IS_MCAST(pattrib->dst))) {
> > +   if ((!MacAddr_isBcst(pattrib->dst)) && (!IS_MCAST(pattrib->dst)))
> > padapter->mlmepriv.LinkDetectInfo.NumRxUnicastOkInPeriod++;
> > -   }
> >  
> > if (sta)
> > psta = sta;
> > @@ -937,9 +936,8 @@ sint ap2sta_data_frame(struct adapter *adapter, union 
> > recv_frame *precv_frame,
> > goto exit;
> > }
> >  
> > -   if ((GetFrameSubType(ptr) & WIFI_QOS_DATA_TYPE) == 
> > WIFI_QOS_DATA_TYPE) {
> > -   }
> > -
> > +   if ((GetFrameSubType(ptr) & WIFI_QOS_DATA_TYPE) == 
> > WIFI_QOS_DATA_TYPE)
> > +   ;
> 
> An if statement that does nothing should not be here at all, right?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
My apologies for sending this in private to Greg the first time.
I was not smart enough to figure out that Group in Mutt stands for "Reply to 
all".
Thank you for your suggestion Greg.
Should I send a single patch that deletes the empty if statement at line 940
and the unnecessary braces at the other lines
or should I split the two deletions into two separate patches?
Should it perhaps be a patch set?
Thanks!
Br. Matt
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel