Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: fix unnecessary else block with only a break statement

[Isaac Aneek Sarker]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 11:33:49 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 02:29:38PM +0600, Isaac Aneek Sarker wrote:
> > Warning found by checkpatch.pl : else is not generally useful after a
> > break or return. The function would reach the break statement after
> > if-elseif block even if the else block is not used.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Isaac Aneek Sarker <alvasarker2004@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> > index 3c82012fdc6c..a203ef8bd6f6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> > @@ -1789,8 +1789,8 @@ static int enqueue_reorder_recvframe(struct recv_reorder_ctrl *preorder_ctrl, un
> >  			/* Duplicate entry is found!! Do not insert current entry. */
> >  			/* spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ppending_recvframe_queue->lock, irql); */
> >  			return false;
> > -		else
> > -			break;
> > +
> > +		break;
> 
> Did you test this code?  It looks like you now just changed the logic a
> lot, right?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

No I didn't test the code. And I don't have the required hardware. But I would like to know what are widely used test methods in linux kernel dev to test a driver when you don't have the relevant hardware vs when you have one for and finally test the code. At first it seemed a trivial change to me because that else block would only execute if the if-elseif block didnt execute, which made me come to the decision that the else block was unnecessary.