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

[Philipp Hortmann]

On 6/24/22 05:34, Chang Yu wrote:
> 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.

description:
You wrote what you did in the description. Even when the why can be 
likely answered as well it is not sufficient for Greg K-H.

I propose something like:
Combine two nested if statements into a single one to increase readability.

Or

Combine two nested if statements into a single one to shorten code.

subject:
I am guessing. The subject could may be remain but I think it is to 
general. Please consider that we can have multiple of this subjects what 
is not good. How to know which patch is which?

I propose something like:
staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements in function xxxx

Or

staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements in file xxxx


But consider that the patches that were accepted do also have a not so 
specific subject. The description was very clear about the "why". There 
the reason was always checkpatch.

Bye Philipp