Re: [PATCH] Update core.c

From: Shuah Khan
Date: Mon Sep 30 2024 - 18:14:10 EST


On 9/30/24 16:06, Okan Tumuklu wrote:
From: Okan Tümüklü <117488504+Okan-tumuklu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

1:The control flow was simplified by using else if statements instead of goto structure.

2:Error conditions are handled more clearly.

3:The device_unlock call at the end of the function is guaranteed in all cases.

Write a paragraph - don't use bullet lists.

Please refer to submitting patches for details on how to
write shortlogs and change logs.

"Update core.c" with what? Write a better short log.

Why do you this 117488504+Okan-tumuklu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
in the list? It will complain every time someone responds
to this thread. This is not how patches are sent. Refer to
documents in the kernel repo on how to send patches.

You are missing net maintainers and mailing lists.

Include all reviewers - run get_maintainers.pl

---
net/nfc/core.c | 28 ++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/nfc/core.c b/net/nfc/core.c
index e58dc6405054..4e8f01145c37 100644
--- a/net/nfc/core.c
+++ b/net/nfc/core.c
@@ -40,27 +40,19 @@ int nfc_fw_download(struct nfc_dev *dev, const char *firmware_name)
if (dev->shutting_down) {
rc = -ENODEV;
- goto error;
- }
-
- if (dev->dev_up) {
+ }else if (dev->dev_up) {
rc = -EBUSY;
- goto error;
- }

Did you run checkpack script on this patch? There are a few
coding style errors.

-
- if (!dev->ops->fw_download) {
+ }else if (!dev->ops->fw_download) {
rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
- goto error;
- }
-
- dev->fw_download_in_progress = true;
- rc = dev->ops->fw_download(dev, firmware_name);
- if (rc)
- dev->fw_download_in_progress = false;
+ }else{
+ dev->fw_download_in_progress = true;
+ rc = dev->ops->fw_download(dev, firmware_name);
+ if (rc)
+ dev->fw_download_in_progress = false;
+ }
-error:
- device_unlock(&dev->dev);
- return rc;
+ device_unlock(&dev->dev);
+ return rc;
}
/**

thanks,
-- Shuah