On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 02:56:26PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 12:01:21PM +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > @@ -568,20 +561,11 @@ static s32 update_attrib_sec_info(struct adapter
> > *padapter, struct pkt_attrib *p
> > if (pattrib->encrypt > 0)
> > memcpy(pattrib->dot118021x_UncstKey.skey,
> > psta->dot118021x_UncstKey.skey, 16);
> >
> > - RT_TRACE(_module_rtl871x_xmit_c_, _drv_info_,
> > - ("update_attrib: encrypt =%d securitypriv.sw_encrypt =%d\n",
> > - pattrib->encrypt, padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt));
> > -
> > if (pattrib->encrypt &&
> > - ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt == true) ||
> > (psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted == false))) {
> > + ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt) ||
> > (!psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted)))
>
> You've done too much clean up here. Just remove the { but leave the
> == true/false comparisons.
>
> If the patch is only changing five lines or code then fixing checkpatch
> warnings on the line of code you are changing is fine, but in this case
> you're doing a bunch of changes and these sort of cleanups make it hard
> to review.
>
> Ease to spot that the curly brace changed:
> - ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt == true) ||
> (psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted == false))) {
> + ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt == true) ||
> (psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted == false)))
>
> Hard to spot:
> - ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt == true) ||
> (psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted == false))) {
> + ((padapter->securitypriv.sw_encrypt) ||
> (!psecuritypriv->hw_decrypted)))
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
thank you Dan, it's a good tuning process for me. Shall I resend the
whole patchset? Maybe some of them are ok...
fabio
