linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/28] staging: rtl8188eu: Remove unused function rtl8188eu_ps

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 10:39:19 +0530
From:	navin patidar <navin.patidar@...il.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/28] staging: rtl8188eu: Remove unused function rtl8188eu_ps_func()

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:19:07PM +0530, navin patidar wrote:
>> > You have changed it to return _FAIL instead of true.  Perhaps that is ok
>> > but you need to explain it in the changelog.
>> >
>> oops, I'll resend this patch with proper changelog.
>> I have one question, do i need to send v2 of whole patch series or
>> just this patch.
>
> Greg, none of the other patches rely on this one.  Could you apply them
> and drop this one?  This one is also fine except for the changelog but
> Navin can send a new version in a new thread.

Please drop this patch.

> [ General rules on redoing patches threads ]
>
> When you are sending a patch series and someone asks you to update one
> changelog, then you can resend just the patch but you must set the
> In-Reply-To email header.  You didn't do that for [PATCH 13/28] so now
> the v2 of that patch is in its own thread.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind next time.

>
> If you are sending a patch series and updating one in the middle means
> that the other patches won't apply then you should redo the whole thing
> or ask Greg to apply the first 7 patches and redo the last ones.
>
> If you are sending a series and you have to update a lot of patches then
> resend the whole thing because otherwise it becomes confusing.

Thanks for explaining the process in detail. :)

> [ This patch in particular ]
>
> Ok.  So I looked at this and the function which calls
> rtw_hal_intf_ps_func() is never called, so you're right that this
> function isn't used.  Probably this is what you were going to put in
> your changelog and I would check and that's fine.
>
> But when I am reviewing these kinds of "delete unused code" patches then
> I just "Ok.  If there are still users the compile will break."  So I
> don't have to look outside the email client.  So I would prefer if you
> did it in this order:
>
> [patch 1/4] staging: rtl8188eu: Remove unused function rtw_interface_ps_func()
> [patch 2/4] staging: rtl8188eu: Remove unused function rtw_hal_intf_ps_func()
> [patch 3/4] staging: rtl8188eu: Remove unused function pointer ->interface_ps_func
> [patch 4/4] staging: rtl8188eu: staging: rtl8188eu: Remove unused function rtl8188eu_ps_func()

I'll send new patchset in order you mentioned.

regards,
navin patidar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/