[PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: remove unnecessary goto

[PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: remove unnecessary goto

[Haasham Khan]

The goto exit statement jumps to the next statement, so it has no
effect. Remove it and the now-unnecessary label, and simplify the
conditional block.

Signed-off-by: Haasham Khan <haasham93@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
index 6f4bdad00f60..c2d0cd314b81 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
@@ -2005,12 +2005,9 @@ static int recv_func_prehandle(struct adapter *padapter, union recv_frame *rfram
 
 	/* check the frame crtl field and decache */
 	ret = validate_recv_frame(padapter, rframe);
-	if (ret != _SUCCESS) {
+	if (ret != _SUCCESS)
 		rtw_free_recvframe(rframe, pfree_recv_queue);/* free this recv_frame */
-		goto exit;
-	}
 
-exit:
 	return ret;
 }
 
-- 
2.53.0

Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: remove unnecessary goto

[Julia Lawall]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2026, Haasham Khan wrote:

> The goto exit statement jumps to the next statement, so it has no
> effect. Remove it and the now-unnecessary label, and simplify the
> conditional block.
>
> Signed-off-by: Haasham Khan <haasham93@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

Actually, this driver isn't accepting patches any more, because it will be
removed.  This was discussed on the mailing list recently.

julia

>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> index 6f4bdad00f60..c2d0cd314b81 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> @@ -2005,12 +2005,9 @@ static int recv_func_prehandle(struct adapter *padapter, union recv_frame *rfram
>
>  	/* check the frame crtl field and decache */
>  	ret = validate_recv_frame(padapter, rframe);
> -	if (ret != _SUCCESS) {
> +	if (ret != _SUCCESS)
>  		rtw_free_recvframe(rframe, pfree_recv_queue);/* free this recv_frame */
> -		goto exit;
> -	}
>
> -exit:
>  	return ret;
>  }
>
> --
> 2.53.0
>
>
>

Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: remove unnecessary goto

[Greg KH]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2026 at 12:25:04PM +0000, Haasham Khan wrote:
> The goto exit statement jumps to the next statement, so it has no
> effect. Remove it and the now-unnecessary label, and simplify the
> conditional block.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Haasham Khan <haasham93@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> index 6f4bdad00f60..c2d0cd314b81 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> @@ -2005,12 +2005,9 @@ static int recv_func_prehandle(struct adapter *padapter, union recv_frame *rfram
>  
>  	/* check the frame crtl field and decache */
>  	ret = validate_recv_frame(padapter, rframe);
> -	if (ret != _SUCCESS) {
> +	if (ret != _SUCCESS)
>  		rtw_free_recvframe(rframe, pfree_recv_queue);/* free this recv_frame */
> -		goto exit;
> -	}
>  
> -exit:
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.53.0
> 
> 

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:

- Your patch did not apply to any known trees that Greg is in control
  of.  Possibly this is because you made it against Linus's tree, not
  the linux-next tree, which is where all of the development for the
  next version of the kernel is at.  Please refresh your patch against
  the linux-next tree, or even better yet, the development tree
  specified in the MAINTAINERS file for the subsystem you are submitting
  a patch for, and resend it.

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