[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22a48290-814e-bcae-81e5-c23e6310f8f6@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 17:00:41 +0300
From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To: Zameer Manji <zmanji@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>,
"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove unused defines in wifi.h
On 11/16/21 16:48, Zameer Manji wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:56 PM Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/21 04:14, Zameer Manji wrote:
>> > None of these defines in wifi.h are used so they
>> > can be safely removed.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Zameer Manji <zmanji@...il.com>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/wifi.h | 57 --------------------------
>> > 1 file changed, 57 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/wifi.h b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/wifi.h
>> > index 193a557f0f47..7cbc7015e90f 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/wifi.h
>> > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/wifi.h
>> > @@ -13,32 +13,9 @@
>> > #define BIT(x) (1 << (x))
>>
>> What about BIT() macro? It's already defined in include/vdso/bits.h and
>> can be included via include/bits.h.
>>
>> Most likely linux/ieee80211.h contains bits.h. Haven't checked yet, but
>> anyway redefining kernel macros is not good approach and BIT() can be
>> also removed.
>
> This is a good observation, but the objective of my patch is to remove
> unused defines so it will be easier to do the work that you mention. wifi.h
> and ieee80211.h redefine a few kernel provided values, and I intend to
> follow up by addressing all of them in one go.
>
> Would you be willing to ack this patch as is?
>
I cannot ack, since I am not the maintainer (or even reviewer) of this
driver :) I just saw this BIT() definition and decided to say, that it
can be also removed
Just to be clear: I am not against this patch as is, since _any_ clean
up for this driver is important
Thanks
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists