[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023061938-unbounded-unbent-e706@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:57:56 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com>
Cc: Yogesh Hegde <yogi.kernel@...il.com>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dan.carpenter@...aro.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org, ivan.orlov0322@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Trivial code cleanup patches
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 10:26:37PM +0200, Philipp Hortmann wrote:
> On 6/18/23 15:03, Yogesh Hegde wrote:
> > Rename variables in struct rtllib_device to avoid CamelCase which is not
> > accepted by checkpatch.
> >
> > ---
> > v3: The driver is split into 2 modules, calling the functions directly which
> > the v2 of the patchset does breaks compile. So reverting back to v1 of
> > the patch as suggested by Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>.
> >
> > v2: Removed the variable and called the function directly instead of
> > just renaming the variable as suggested by Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yogesh Hegde (4):
> > staging: rtl8192e: Rename variable SetWirelessMode
> > staging: rtl8192e: Rename variable SetBWModeHandler
> > staging: rtl8192e: Rename variable LeisurePSLeave
> > staging: rtl8192e: Rename variable InitialGainHandler
> >
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.c | 8 ++++----
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_HTProc.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib.h | 12 ++++++------
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_rx.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_softmac.c | 12 ++++++------
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_softmac_wx.c | 6 +++---
> > 7 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> This patch series alone is fine. But when my patch series ([PATCH 0/9]
> staging: rtl8192e: Remove unsupported modes a and 5G) is applied before it
> fails as we change same lines. Will see what happens.
Yes, none of these apply :(
Yogesh, can you rebase this on my staging-next branch and resend?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists