On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 06:04 -0500, Maksymilian Piechota wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:00:36PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 17:44 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:31:42AM -0500, Maksymilian Piechota wrote:
> > > > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING: Statements should start on a tabstop
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Maksymilian Piechota <maksymilianpiech...@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/staging/wlan-ng/prism2mgmt.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/prism2mgmt.c
> > > > b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/prism2mgmt.c
> > > > index 16fb2d3..2d67125 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/prism2mgmt.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/prism2mgmt.c
> > > > @@ -1308,7 +1308,7 @@ int prism2mgmt_wlansniff(struct wlandevice
> > > > *wlandev, void *msgp)
> > > > hw->sniffhdr = 0;
> > > > wlandev->netdev->type = ARPHRD_IEEE80211_PRISM;
> > > > } else
> > > > - if ((msg->wlanheader.status ==
> > > > + if ((msg->wlanheader.status ==
> > > > P80211ENUM_msgitem_status_data_ok)
> > > > && (msg->wlanheader.data ==
> > > > P80211ENUM_truth_true)) {
> > > > hw->sniffhdr = 1;
> > >
> > > Hm, this all doesn't look correct now, does it? Please fix up the whole
> > > if statement here.
> >
> > Ideally, it'd look something like:
> >
> > /* Set the driver state */
> > /* Do we want the prism2 header? */
> > if (msg->prismheader.status ==
> > P80211ENUM_msgitem_status_data_ok &&
> > msg->prismheader.data == P80211ENUM_truth_true) {
> > hw->sniffhdr = 0;
> > wlandev->netdev->type = ARPHRD_IEEE80211_PRISM;
> > } else if (msg->wlanheader.status ==
> > P80211ENUM_msgitem_status_data_ok &&
> > msg->wlanheader.data == P80211ENUM_truth_true) {
> > hw->sniffhdr = 1;
> > wlandev->netdev->type = ARPHRD_IEEE80211_PRISM;
> > } else {
> > wlandev->netdev->type = ARPHRD_IEEE80211;
> > }
> >
> > with the unnecessary parentheses removed,
> > the logical continuations at the end-of-line,
> > and the else if on a single line.
> >
>
> I must admit it looks better, but this way we get 2 warnings instead of
> 1 (before my changes). What is the policy? Can we ignore more warnings
> in order to get cleaner code?
Yes please.
checkpatch is just a guide, it's brainless.
The reason these lines are > 80 columns is
overly long/verbose identifiers.
If you really want to clean up the code here,
the P90211ENUM_ prefixes are a bit misleading
as they all are #define and not enums at all.
