Hi Lakshmi, On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:42:06 -0700 Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nra...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> On 3/11/2020 6:58 AM, Shreeya Patel wrote: > > > Remove unnecessary if and else conditions since both are leading to the > > initialization of "phtpriv->ampdu_enable" with the same value. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23...@gmail.com> > > Stating this based on the patch descriptions I have seen. > Others, please advise\correct me if I am wrong. > > Patch description should state the problem first[1] and then describe > how that is fixed in the given patch. > > For example: > > In the function rtw_update_ht_cap(), phtpriv->ampdu_enable is set to the > same value in both if and else statements. > > This patch removes this unnecessary if-else statement. That's my general preference as well, but I can't find any point in the "Describe your changes" section of submitting-patches.rst actually defining the order. I wouldn't imply that from the sequence the steps are presented in. In case it's possible to say everything with a single statement as Shreeya did here, though, I guess that becomes rather a linguistic factor, and I personally prefer the concise version here. -- Stefano _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
