Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one

[Chang Yu]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:45:07AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:14:04PM -0700, Chang Yu wrote:
> > Combine two nested if statements into a single one
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chang Yu <marcus.yu.56@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > Added a pair of parentheses to make operator precedence explicit.
> > 
> >  drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c | 6 ++----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
> > index 6564e82ddd66..020bc212532f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
> > @@ -166,10 +166,8 @@ int rtw_free_recvframe(struct recv_frame *precvframe, struct __queue *pfree_recv
> >  
> >  	list_add_tail(&precvframe->list, get_list_head(pfree_recv_queue));
> >  
> > -	if (padapter) {
> > -		if (pfree_recv_queue == &precvpriv->free_recv_queue)
> > -				precvpriv->free_recvframe_cnt++;
> > -	}
> > +	if (padapter && (pfree_recv_queue == &precvpriv->free_recv_queue))
> > +		precvpriv->free_recvframe_cnt++;
> >  
> >  	spin_unlock_bh(&pfree_recv_queue->lock);
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.36.1
> > 
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
> 
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
> 
> - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
>   possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
>   section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
>   Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
>   properly describe the change.
> 
> - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
>   and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
>   the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
>   Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
>   look like.
> 
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h's patch email bot

I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. I checked the original patch
again and the subject and the body looks OK to me. I'm still a newbie so
I might have missed a couple of things. It would be greatly appreciated
if someone could point out what's missing.