Revert "docs: checkpatch: add UNNECESSARY/UNSPECIFIED_INT and UNNECESSARY_ELSE"

This reverts commit cbb817fc.

Late-arriving nacks make it clear that I applied this one too soon.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAKXUXMzEFQd1JJhx4ZbBQiuSB7Fk3bd7dwJYmPOvEtMqZopxpg@mail.gmail.com/Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst

@@ -999,13 +999,6 @@ Functions and Variables
 
       return bar;
 
-  **UNNECESSARY_INT**
-    int used after short, long and long long is unnecessary. So remove it.
-
-  **UNSPECIFIED_INT**
-    Kernel style prefers "unsigned int <foo>" over "unsigned <foo>" and
-    "signed int <foo>" over "signed <foo>".
-
 
 Permissions
 -----------
@@ -1254,43 +1247,3 @@ Others
 
   **TYPO_SPELLING**
     Some words may have been misspelled.  Consider reviewing them.
-
-  **UNNECESSARY_ELSE**
-    Using an else statement just after a return or a break statement is
-    unnecassary. For example::
-
-      for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
-              int foo = bar();
-              if (foo < 1)
-                      break;
-              else
-                      usleep(1);
-      }
-
-    is generally better written as::
-
-      for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
-              int foo = bar();
-              if (foo < 1)
-                      break;
-              usleep(1);
-      }
-
-    So remove the else statement. But suppose if a if-else statement each
-    with a single return statement, like::
-
-      if (foo)
-              return bar;
-      else
-              return baz;
-
-    then by removing the else statement::
-
-      if (foo)
-              return bar;
-      return baz;
-
-    their is no significant increase in the readability and one can argue
-    that the first form is more readable because of indentation, so for
-    such cases do not convert the existing code from first form to second
-    form or vice-versa.