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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190609120139.GA19925@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 9 Jun 2019 14:01:39 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Deepak Kumar Mishra <linux.dkm@...il.com>
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

On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 05:16:48PM +0530, Deepak Kumar Mishra wrote:
> 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 ?

Put all of the information in the 00/XX email and send a new version.

thanks,

greg k-h