[PATCH-3] staging: rts5208: rtsx: Use balanced braces for if/else if blocks

[PATCH-3] staging: rts5208: rtsx: Use balanced braces for if/else if blocks

[John Oldman]

Coding style issues

Signed-off-by: John Oldman <john.oldman@polehill.co.uk>
---
 v1: Initial attempt
 v2: Do more blocks
 v3: Single patch
 drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx.c | 20 +++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx.c
index be0053c795b7..e16a7b9c3203 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx.c
@@ -402,27 +402,21 @@ static int rtsx_control_thread(void *__dev)
 		if (chip->srb->sc_data_direction == DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL) {
 			dev_err(&dev->pci->dev, "UNKNOWN data direction\n");
 			chip->srb->result = DID_ERROR << 16;
-		}
-
-		/* reject if target != 0 or if LUN is higher than
-		 * the maximum known LUN
-		 */
-		else if (chip->srb->device->id) {
+		} else if (chip->srb->device->id) {
+			/* reject if target != 0 or if LUN is higher than
+			 * the maximum known LUN
+			 */
 			dev_err(&dev->pci->dev, "Bad target number (%d:%d)\n",
 				chip->srb->device->id,
 				(u8)chip->srb->device->lun);
 			chip->srb->result = DID_BAD_TARGET << 16;
-		}
-
-		else if (chip->srb->device->lun > chip->max_lun) {
+		} else if (chip->srb->device->lun > chip->max_lun) {
 			dev_err(&dev->pci->dev, "Bad LUN (%d:%d)\n",
 				chip->srb->device->id,
 				(u8)chip->srb->device->lun);
 			chip->srb->result = DID_BAD_TARGET << 16;
-		}
-
-		/* we've got a command, let's do it! */
-		else {
+		} else {
+			/* we've got a command, let's do it! */
 			scsi_show_command(chip);
 			rtsx_invoke_transport(chip->srb, chip);
 		}
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH-3] staging: rts5208: rtsx: Use balanced braces for if/else if blocks

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:28:04AM +0100, John Oldman wrote:
> Coding style issues


Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
  possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
  section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
  properly describe the change.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot