Probably you sent this patch unintentionally. The subject doesn't make
any sort of sense. :P
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 07:36:57PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
Change the return values of function r8712_setdatarate_cmd from _SUCCESS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and _FAIL to 0 and -ENOMEM respectively.
Change the return type of the function from u8 to int to reflect this.
Change the call site of the function to check for 0 instead of _SUCCESS.
(Checking that the return value != 0 is not necessary; the return value
itself can simply be passed into the conditional.)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is obvious. No need to mention it in the commit message.
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl871x_ioctl_linux.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl871x_ioctl_linux.c
index b424b8436fcf..761e2ba68a42 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl871x_ioctl_linux.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl871x_ioctl_linux.c
@@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ static int r8711_wx_set_rate(struct net_device *dev,
datarates[i] = 0xff;
}
}
- if (r8712_setdatarate_cmd(padapter, datarates) != _SUCCESS)
+ if (r8712_setdatarate_cmd(padapter, datarates))
ret = -ENOMEM;
return ret;
It would be better to write this like so:
ret = r8712_setdatarate_cmd(padapter, datarates);
if (ret)
return ret;
return 0;
Or you could write it like:
return r8712_setdatarate_cmd(padapter, datarates);
Which ever one you prefer is fineThanking you,
regards,
dan carpenter