Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: rtl8723bs: core/rtw_mlme_ext.c: initialize copy_len, clearing later control-flow.

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 11:08:51AM -0500, William Hansen-Baird wrote:
> Initialize copy_len to 0 in rtw_parse_assoc_security_ies function.
> This allows later if-statement to not have to explicitly set copy_len to 0.
> Thus we can make the if statement single-lined, and remove the braces
> from the if-else branch.
> The change is purely cosmetic and changes no logic.
> 
> Signed-off-by: William Hansen-Baird <william.hansen.baird@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 9 ++++-----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> index 842e95e1eaec..d470725a033f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> @@ -946,6 +946,7 @@ static unsigned short rtw_parse_assoc_security_ies(struct adapter *padapter,
>  	pstat->wpa_pairwise_cipher = 0;
>  	pstat->wpa2_pairwise_cipher = 0;
>  	memset(pstat->wpa_ie, 0, sizeof(pstat->wpa_ie));
> +
>  	if ((psecuritypriv->wpa_psk & BIT(1)) && elems->rsn_ie) {
>  
>  		int group_cipher = 0, pairwise_cipher = 0;

Why this line added?

> @@ -1016,17 +1017,15 @@ static unsigned short rtw_parse_assoc_security_ies(struct adapter *padapter,
>  		}
>  
>  	} else {
> -		int copy_len;
> +		int copy_len = 0;
>  
>  		if (psecuritypriv->wpa_psk == 0) 
>  			return WLAN_STATUS_INVALID_IE;
>  
> -		if (elems->wps_ie) {
> +		if (elems->wps_ie)
>  			pstat->flags |= WLAN_STA_WPS;
> -			copy_len = 0;
> -		} else {
> +		else
>  			copy_len = min_t(int, sizeof(pstat->wpa_ie), wpa_ie_len+2);
> -		}
>  
>  		if (copy_len > 0)
>  			memcpy(pstat->wpa_ie, wpa_ie-2, copy_len);

I feel like this is just polishing the code for no reason at all.  Why
make this change at all?  What asked for it?

thanks,

greg k-h