linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] staging: rtl8712: cleanup struct

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

Message-ID: <933b8890-986c-8bdb-93ef-90edf248fb43@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:16:48 +0530
From:   Deepak Kumar Mishra <linux.dkm@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
        florian.c.schilhabel@...glemail.com, straube.linux@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] staging: rtl8712: cleanup struct _adapter

Hi Greg,

On 09/06/19 4:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 04:26:55PM +0530, Deepak Mishra wrote:
>> In process of cleaning up rtl8712 struct _adapter in drv_types.h I have
>> tried to remove some unused variables and redundant lines of code
>> associated with those variables. I have also fixed some CamelCase
>> reported by checkpatch.pl
>>
>> Deepak Mishra (6):
>>    staging: rtl8712: Fixed CamelCase for EepromAddressSize
>>    staging: rtl8712: Removed redundant code from function
>>      oid_rt_pro_write_register_hdl
>>    staging: rtl8712: Fixed CamelCase cmdThread rename to cmd_thread
>>    staging: rtl8712: removed unused variables from struct _adapter
>>    staging: rtl8712: Renamed CamelCase wkFilterRxFF0 to wk_filter_rx_ff0
>>    staging: rtl8712: Renamed CamelCase lockRxFF0Filter to
>>      lock_rx_ff0_filter
> If this is a "v4" series, I do not see a list of what has changed from
> the previous versions at all here :(
>
> Please list it somewhere, usually in the individual patches below the
> --- line, or you can put it here in the 00/XX email as well.
>
> v5 please?
In my previous versions I mainly tried to correct the patch submission 
based on your suggestion for example
1.keeping every individual task separate.
2. Not only just fix CamelCase but if those variables are unused remove 
those.
3. If any variable is assigned but never used then remove those.

So should I put these review comments in my 0/6 file and send you the v5 
of the patch set,

or remove version number and send a new patch set again as if it is a 
fresh patch set ?

Please suggest.

Best regards
Deepak Mishra

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h