From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6251802816159940608 X-Received: by 10.31.15.11 with SMTP id 11mr10985139vkp.3.1455864355270; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:45:55 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.79.71 with SMTP id h7ls2763602obx.2.gmail; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:45:54 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.105.133 with SMTP id gm5mr10603191obb.41.1455864354794; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:45:54 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 12si1458048pfb.1.2016.02.18.22.45.54 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:45:54 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of amsfield22@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of amsfield22@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=amsfield22@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: by mail-pa0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id ho8so46383266pac.2 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:45:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YdRZ2Cb0QyDR2mpPBKG1O3ZTZbMjySS/GS+h/qaK9Gc=; b=u/2rbPKin5qqlZjLSoAh+i6e7p6oxSy9rN4NgQLZ6WDhfJR0td5gm21cxyEAxw0sM1 Z45qesKGeDr+TSq1zJEEigQ/pcPgpA8f5gorAovR5Vmxj2hPJvrm8j50n9TKDZBM9o1v NtD7FyLP+UqmLYRD2w7Z77b+g5XirOVH21lCAnI7Krpwla1xOXgUzhd5SmZJFH9UjoCa sBZnm8rDISRpCki/zxxr2momj7OdaRz11WBKmmCtmSGwp/Jjox9FtZnEgtbg8UDZm0IQ sxNjnuhimlR9DLudoKzyFu8ugHbS9QyR+h2DI+OcTn0opY0lg/y+Jny2JFv8WMO7RJMg bBjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=YdRZ2Cb0QyDR2mpPBKG1O3ZTZbMjySS/GS+h/qaK9Gc=; b=R7Bnncf1tf1gjAmJqmWmMn+hyQl8278BmFIU1zxHrGCSWra8ryOyJaGyxPYlNf+nEQ j60KxqQvrzyDuaZ+/DvpSgnKBpmHvP84JKKK4aheUfM7IEZmZoE/7x4mkqONz71767Ky d4l844PKvx96RYQ/QVxYRqELD5jmQGyS7IMIyHyZhXP05fwsd2WC0bUlhSEE2Jt6z70t bQnNt/di+ZpDgQvY657mUrnRCuPoPwAKFBTEqmldZ7uLjUu2mKB5EAihZlSmVStESGnT ksqBuZcbKMjL+3XoDVeE0yF89wU01ndZg0hm8NpS0Z0qvokYFBTmp1YCulVqV2qgotNn 5XdA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSSgA8PLirLPy8PmQcQB1kNQ8jlpEj5PaP0wbeFApkspI/C8EDuUcMudK2LOIGAUA== X-Received: by 10.66.62.162 with SMTP id z2mr15755264par.39.1455864354653; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:45:54 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from d830 (or-67-232-72-178.dhcp.embarqhsd.net. [67.232.72.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s21sm14879646pfi.29.2016.02.18.22.45.53 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:45:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:45:53 -0800 From: Alison Schofield To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH 1/3] staging: wilc1000: host_interface: remove unused semaphores Message-ID: <20160219064551.GB2364@d830.WORKGROUP> References: <56da9617c7a47e0d72e5f2fdf4cd4432c4cda842.1455609607.git.amsfield22@gmail.com> <4981983.aWxGuik0IG@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4981983.aWxGuik0IG@wuerfel> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:33:38AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2016 00:30:35 Alison Schofield wrote: > > Remove unused semaphore declarations, initializations, and unlocks. > > > > The functions that locked these semaphores were previously removed, > > so this cleans up the remains. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield > > > > Nice! > > Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann I'm wondering if I should have cleaned this area up more. I was cleaning up the semaphores because the functions that locked those HOST_IF_MSG's has been removed. However, the "handlers" for these returned HOST_IF_MSG's still exist, as does the case in the hostIFthread() switch. They seem like artifacts, but then again, they could be needed for some pass-thru mode. Leave it, clean it, or seek more info? Thanks, alisons alisons