* [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code @ 2015-10-13 23:00 Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-13 23:14 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-13 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: outreachy-kernel Change the order of statements and remove extra code. Signed-off-by: Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 11 ++++------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c index d6c4982..4269be9 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c @@ -2707,17 +2707,14 @@ RTY_SD_RST: return STATUS_FAIL; } + CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); + if (hi_cap_flow) { if (rsp[1] & 0x40) SET_SD_HCXC(sd_card); - else - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); - - support_1v8 = false; - } else { - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); - support_1v8 = false; } + + support_1v8 = false; dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "support_1v8 = %d\n", support_1v8); if (support_1v8) { -- 2.1.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code 2015-10-13 23:00 [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-13 23:14 ` Greg KH 2015-10-13 23:24 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2015-10-13 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shivani Bhardwaj; +Cc: outreachy-kernel On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:30:10AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: > Change the order of statements and remove extra code. > > Signed-off-by: Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 11 ++++------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c > index d6c4982..4269be9 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c > @@ -2707,17 +2707,14 @@ RTY_SD_RST: > return STATUS_FAIL; > } > > + CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > + > if (hi_cap_flow) { > if (rsp[1] & 0x40) > SET_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > - else > - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > - > - support_1v8 = false; > - } else { > - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > - support_1v8 = false; > } > + > + support_1v8 = false; > dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "support_1v8 = %d\n", support_1v8); > > if (support_1v8) { Are you sure you didn't change the logic of what is happening here? Why are you making this change? What prompted it? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code 2015-10-13 23:14 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Greg KH @ 2015-10-13 23:24 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-13 23:39 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-13 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: outreachy-kernel On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:30:10AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: >> Change the order of statements and remove extra code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 11 ++++------- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c >> index d6c4982..4269be9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c >> @@ -2707,17 +2707,14 @@ RTY_SD_RST: >> return STATUS_FAIL; >> } >> >> + CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> + >> if (hi_cap_flow) { >> if (rsp[1] & 0x40) >> SET_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> - else >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> - >> - support_1v8 = false; >> - } else { >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> - support_1v8 = false; >> } >> + >> + support_1v8 = false; >> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "support_1v8 = %d\n", support_1v8); >> >> if (support_1v8) { > > Are you sure you didn't change the logic of what is happening here? > > Why are you making this change? What prompted it? > > thanks, > > greg k-h Logic remains fine, I think. support_1v8 statement was common to if and else so it is taken out. Also, it can be noted that programmer wants to set sd_card value only if hi_cap_flow is not null and (rsp[1] & 0x40) is true. For rest of the cases, programmer wants to clear the sd_card. I think I'm sure about the changes made. I came across this code while running notnull.cocci against this. However, after I checked the code, cocci script was not very apt, I saw this, took references from http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_chip.h#L421 about the macros and deleted the extra code by changing order. I've explained the logic above, if you still find any discrepancies, please tell me. Thank you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code 2015-10-13 23:24 ` Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-13 23:39 ` Greg KH 2015-10-13 23:45 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2015-10-13 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shivani Bhardwaj; +Cc: outreachy-kernel On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:54:45AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:30:10AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: > >> Change the order of statements and remove extra code. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 11 ++++------- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c > >> index d6c4982..4269be9 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c > >> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c > >> @@ -2707,17 +2707,14 @@ RTY_SD_RST: > >> return STATUS_FAIL; > >> } > >> > >> + CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > >> + > >> if (hi_cap_flow) { > >> if (rsp[1] & 0x40) > >> SET_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > >> - else > >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > >> - > >> - support_1v8 = false; > >> - } else { > >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > >> - support_1v8 = false; > >> } > >> + > >> + support_1v8 = false; > >> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "support_1v8 = %d\n", support_1v8); > >> > >> if (support_1v8) { > > > > Are you sure you didn't change the logic of what is happening here? > > > > Why are you making this change? What prompted it? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Logic remains fine, I think. support_1v8 statement was common to if > and else so it is taken out. Also, it can be noted that programmer > wants to set sd_card value only if hi_cap_flow is not null and (rsp[1] > & 0x40) is true. For rest of the cases, programmer wants to clear the > sd_card. > I think I'm sure about the changes made. But now you always call CLR_SD_HCXC() where before there was one code path that did not make that call. Are you sure it is safe to call CLR_SD_HCXC() before SET_SD_HCXC()? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code 2015-10-13 23:39 ` Greg KH @ 2015-10-13 23:45 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-13 23:50 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-14 9:24 ` Arnd Bergmann 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-13 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: outreachy-kernel On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:54:45AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:30:10AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: >> >> Change the order of statements and remove extra code. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@gmail.com> >> >> --- >> >> drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 11 ++++------- >> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c >> >> index d6c4982..4269be9 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c >> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c >> >> @@ -2707,17 +2707,14 @@ RTY_SD_RST: >> >> return STATUS_FAIL; >> >> } >> >> >> >> + CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> >> + >> >> if (hi_cap_flow) { >> >> if (rsp[1] & 0x40) >> >> SET_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> >> - else >> >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> >> - >> >> - support_1v8 = false; >> >> - } else { >> >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> >> - support_1v8 = false; >> >> } >> >> + >> >> + support_1v8 = false; >> >> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "support_1v8 = %d\n", support_1v8); >> >> >> >> if (support_1v8) { >> > >> > Are you sure you didn't change the logic of what is happening here? >> > >> > Why are you making this change? What prompted it? >> > >> > thanks, >> > >> > greg k-h >> >> Logic remains fine, I think. support_1v8 statement was common to if >> and else so it is taken out. Also, it can be noted that programmer >> wants to set sd_card value only if hi_cap_flow is not null and (rsp[1] >> & 0x40) is true. For rest of the cases, programmer wants to clear the >> sd_card. >> I think I'm sure about the changes made. > > But now you always call CLR_SD_HCXC() where before there was one code > path that did not make that call. Are you sure it is safe to call > CLR_SD_HCXC() before SET_SD_HCXC()? > > thanks, > > greg k-h I don't think it should be a problem because that is what we ultimately want in our code - to clear the memory card subject to constraints that one of the two if conditions is wrong. Now, if both the if statements, that is, if (hi_cap_flow) and if (rsp[1] & 0x40) turn out to be true, they set the cleared sd_card again. That is what we wanted. If both the if statements are true - set the sd_card else clear it up. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code 2015-10-13 23:45 ` Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-13 23:50 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-14 9:24 ` Arnd Bergmann 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-13 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: outreachy-kernel On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:54:45AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:30:10AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: >>> >> Change the order of statements and remove extra code. >>> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@gmail.com> >>> >> --- >>> >> drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c | 11 ++++------- >>> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >> >>> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c >>> >> index d6c4982..4269be9 100644 >>> >> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c >>> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/sd.c >>> >> @@ -2707,17 +2707,14 @@ RTY_SD_RST: >>> >> return STATUS_FAIL; >>> >> } >>> >> >>> >> + CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >>> >> + >>> >> if (hi_cap_flow) { >>> >> if (rsp[1] & 0x40) >>> >> SET_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >>> >> - else >>> >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >>> >> - >>> >> - support_1v8 = false; >>> >> - } else { >>> >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >>> >> - support_1v8 = false; >>> >> } >>> >> + >>> >> + support_1v8 = false; >>> >> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "support_1v8 = %d\n", support_1v8); >>> >> >>> >> if (support_1v8) { >>> > >>> > Are you sure you didn't change the logic of what is happening here? >>> > >>> > Why are you making this change? What prompted it? >>> > >>> > thanks, >>> > >>> > greg k-h >>> >>> Logic remains fine, I think. support_1v8 statement was common to if >>> and else so it is taken out. Also, it can be noted that programmer >>> wants to set sd_card value only if hi_cap_flow is not null and (rsp[1] >>> & 0x40) is true. For rest of the cases, programmer wants to clear the >>> sd_card. >>> I think I'm sure about the changes made. >> >> But now you always call CLR_SD_HCXC() where before there was one code >> path that did not make that call. Are you sure it is safe to call >> CLR_SD_HCXC() before SET_SD_HCXC()? >> >> thanks, >> >> greg k-h > > I don't think it should be a problem because that is what we > ultimately want in our code - to clear the memory card subject to > constraints that one of the two if conditions is wrong. Now, if both > the if statements, that is, > if (hi_cap_flow) and if (rsp[1] & 0x40) > > turn out to be true, they set the cleared sd_card again. > > That is what we wanted. If both the if statements are true - set the > sd_card else clear it up. :) Also, a plus point is that even if the value is to be set (I do not know the inside mechanism of how it will happen) , there would not be any scope of errors (considering some bits are to be written/ logically operated) because sd_card would be empty. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code 2015-10-13 23:45 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-13 23:50 ` Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-14 9:24 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-14 10:16 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2015-10-14 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: outreachy-kernel; +Cc: Shivani Bhardwaj, Greg KH On Wednesday 14 October 2015 05:15:12 Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:54:45AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:30:10AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: > >> >> Change the order of statements and remove extra code. > >> >> + CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > >> >> + > >> >> if (hi_cap_flow) { > >> >> if (rsp[1] & 0x40) > >> >> SET_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > >> >> - else > >> >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > >> >> - > >> >> - support_1v8 = false; > >> >> - } else { > >> >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); > >> >> - support_1v8 = false; > >> >> } > >> >> + > >> >> + support_1v8 = false; > >> >> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "support_1v8 = %d\n", support_1v8); > >> >> > >> >> if (support_1v8) { > >> > > >> > Are you sure you didn't change the logic of what is happening here? > >> > > >> > Why are you making this change? What prompted it? ... > I don't think it should be a problem because that is what we > ultimately want in our code - to clear the memory card subject to > constraints that one of the two if conditions is wrong. Now, if both > the if statements, that is, > if (hi_cap_flow) and if (rsp[1] & 0x40) > > turn out to be true, they set the cleared sd_card again. > > That is what we wanted. If both the if statements are true - set the > sd_card else clear it up. I guess this would be easier to verify if it were not obscured by the SET_SD_HCXC/CLR_SD_HCXC macros ;-) Your change looks like a correct transformation, and it would be logical to remove the support_1v8 variable next, as it can never be true. However, I wonder whether that is just a bug in the driver, as UHS-1 cards are required to support 1.8v operation, and there is clearly code to handle it here. Maybe one of them should actually say "support_1v8 = true". Arnd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code 2015-10-14 9:24 ` Arnd Bergmann @ 2015-10-14 10:16 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-14 13:44 ` Arnd Bergmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-14 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnd Bergmann; +Cc: outreachy-kernel, Greg KH On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Wednesday 14 October 2015 05:15:12 Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:54:45AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:30:10AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: >> >> >> Change the order of statements and remove extra code. >> >> >> + CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> >> >> + >> >> >> if (hi_cap_flow) { >> >> >> if (rsp[1] & 0x40) >> >> >> SET_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> >> >> - else >> >> >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> >> >> - >> >> >> - support_1v8 = false; >> >> >> - } else { >> >> >> - CLR_SD_HCXC(sd_card); >> >> >> - support_1v8 = false; >> >> >> } >> >> >> + >> >> >> + support_1v8 = false; >> >> >> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "support_1v8 = %d\n", support_1v8); >> >> >> >> >> >> if (support_1v8) { >> >> > >> >> > Are you sure you didn't change the logic of what is happening here? >> >> > >> >> > Why are you making this change? What prompted it? > ... > >> I don't think it should be a problem because that is what we >> ultimately want in our code - to clear the memory card subject to >> constraints that one of the two if conditions is wrong. Now, if both >> the if statements, that is, >> if (hi_cap_flow) and if (rsp[1] & 0x40) >> >> turn out to be true, they set the cleared sd_card again. >> >> That is what we wanted. If both the if statements are true - set the >> sd_card else clear it up. > > I guess this would be easier to verify if it were not obscured by the > SET_SD_HCXC/CLR_SD_HCXC macros ;-) > > Your change looks like a correct transformation, and it would be logical > to remove the support_1v8 variable next, as it can never be true. > > However, I wonder whether that is just a bug in the driver, as UHS-1 > cards are required to support 1.8v operation, and there is clearly > code to handle it here. Maybe one of them should actually say > "support_1v8 = true". > > Arnd I do not exactly understand the role of variables here. But, as far as I can guess (after having checked the secure digital) support_1v8 should be true for hi_cap_flow=false. That is, if capacity flow is less, we can allow voltage to be 1.8V otherwise it should be 3.3V. However, I really do not understand what the array rsp is for. So, I'm not sure what its status should be. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code 2015-10-14 10:16 ` Shivani Bhardwaj @ 2015-10-14 13:44 ` Arnd Bergmann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2015-10-14 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shivani Bhardwaj; +Cc: outreachy-kernel, Greg KH On Wednesday 14 October 2015 15:46:09 Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 October 2015 05:15:12 Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:54:45AM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote: > >> I don't think it should be a problem because that is what we > >> ultimately want in our code - to clear the memory card subject to > >> constraints that one of the two if conditions is wrong. Now, if both > >> the if statements, that is, > >> if (hi_cap_flow) and if (rsp[1] & 0x40) > >> > >> turn out to be true, they set the cleared sd_card again. > >> > >> That is what we wanted. If both the if statements are true - set the > >> sd_card else clear it up. > > > > I guess this would be easier to verify if it were not obscured by the > > SET_SD_HCXC/CLR_SD_HCXC macros > > > > Your change looks like a correct transformation, and it would be logical > > to remove the support_1v8 variable next, as it can never be true. > > > > However, I wonder whether that is just a bug in the driver, as UHS-1 > > cards are required to support 1.8v operation, and there is clearly > > code to handle it here. Maybe one of them should actually say > > "support_1v8 = true". > > > > Arnd > > I do not exactly understand the role of variables here. But, as far as > I can guess (after having checked the secure digital) support_1v8 > should be true for hi_cap_flow=false. Yes, that seems like a good guess, but it's impossible to know if that is correct without having a look at some datasheet or specification. > That is, if capacity flow is > less, we can allow voltage to be 1.8V otherwise it should be 3.3V. > However, I really do not understand what the array rsp is for. So, I'm > not sure what its status should be. > Please correct me if I am wrong. 'rsp' here is the response from this command: retval = sd_send_cmd_get_rsp(chip, SD_APP_OP_COND, voltage, SD_RSP_TYPE_R3, rsp, 5); This is a standard SD card command (ACMD41) that is documented in the SD card "Physical Layer Simplified Specification" version 4.10. I have not looked any further, but the answer is probably in there. Arnd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-10-14 13:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-10-13 23:00 [PATCH] Staging: rts5208: sd: Remove redundant code Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-13 23:14 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Greg KH 2015-10-13 23:24 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-13 23:39 ` Greg KH 2015-10-13 23:45 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-13 23:50 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-14 9:24 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-14 10:16 ` Shivani Bhardwaj 2015-10-14 13:44 ` Arnd Bergmann
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.