Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: fix unnecessary else block with only a break statement

On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 11:33:49 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 02:29:38PM +0600, Isaac Aneek Sarker wrote:

quoted

Warning found by checkpatch.pl : else is not generally useful after a
break or return. The function would reach the break statement after
if-elseif block even if the else block is not used.

Signed-off-by: Isaac Aneek Sarker <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
index 3c82012fdc6c..a203ef8bd6f6 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c

@@ -1789,8 +1789,8 @@ static int enqueue_reorder_recvframe(struct recv_reorder_ctrl *preorder_ctrl, un
 			/* Duplicate entry is found!! Do not insert current entry. */
 			/* spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ppending_recvframe_queue->lock, irql); */
 			return false;
-		else
-			break;
+
+		break;

Did you test this code?  It looks like you now just changed the logic a
lot, right?

thanks,

greg k-h

No I didn't test the code. And I don't have the required hardware. But I would like to know what are widely used test methods in linux kernel dev to test a driver when you don't have the relevant hardware vs when you have one for and finally test the code. At first it seemed a trivial change to me because that else block would only execute if the if-elseif block didnt execute, which made me come to the decision that the else block was unnecessary.