Thank you for the review Joe. I'll have that in mind in the next patch.

On 3/9/19, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-03-09 at 15:30 -0300, Guilherme Tadashi Maeoka wrote:
>> Fix an assignment in if condition.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guilherme Tadashi Maeoka <gui.mae...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c | 4 +++-
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c
>> b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c
>> index 73b87da15eb2..c7fdcc6bbae3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c
>> @@ -162,7 +162,9 @@ static int retriveFromFile(char *path, u8 *buf, u32
>> sz)
>>      struct file *fp;
>>
>>      if (path && buf) {
>> -            if (0 == (ret =openFile(&fp, path, O_RDONLY, 0))) {
>> +            ret = openFile(&fp, path, O_RDONLY, 0);
>> +
>> +            if (ret == 0) {
>>                      DBG_871X("%s openFile path:%s fp =%p\n", __func__, path 
>> , fp);
>>
>>                      oldfs = get_fs(); set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
>
> More common kernel style would be to rewrite the function
> (and to fix the typo of retrieve) to something like:
>
> static int retrieveFromFile(char *path, u8 *buf, u32 sz)
> {
>       int ret;
>       mm_segment_t oldfs;
>       struct file *fp;
>
>       if (!path || !buf) {
>               DBG_871X("%s NULL pointer\n", __func__);
>               return -EINVAL;
>       }
>
>       ret = openFile(&fp, path, O_RDONLY, 0);
>       if (ret) {
>               DBG_871X("%s openFile path:%s Fail, ret:%d\n",
>                        __func__, path, ret);
>               return ret;
>       }
>
>       DBG_871X("%s openFile path:%s fp =%p\n", __func__, path , fp);
>
>       oldfs = get_fs();
>       set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
>       ret = readFile(fp, buf, sz);
>       set_fs(oldfs);
>       closeFile(fp);
>
>       DBG_871X("%s readFile, ret:%d\n", __func__, ret);
>
>       return ret;
> }
>
>
>

Reply via email to