Re: [PATCH 001] staging: wlan-ng: Add tabstop preceding the statement

[Maksymilian Piechota]

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 <maksymilianpiechota@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  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?