[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 01/19] ath9k: Remove unnecessary ?: operator

[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 01/19] ath9k: Remove unnecessary ?: operator

[Julian Calaby]

From: Ivan Safonov <insafonov@gmail.com>

"(thermometer < 0) ? 0 : (thermometer == X)" is equivalent to
"thermometer == X" for X >= 0.

Signed-off-by: Ivan Safonov <insafonov@gmail.com>
[Updated commit message]
Signed-off-by: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_eeprom.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_eeprom.c
index 54ed2f7..a049f8d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_eeprom.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_eeprom.c
@@ -4097,16 +4097,16 @@ static void ar9003_hw_thermometer_apply(struct ath_hw *ah)
 		REG_RMW_FIELD(ah, AR_PHY_65NM_CH2_RXTX4,
 			      AR_PHY_65NM_CH0_RXTX4_THERM_ON_OVR, therm_on);
 
-	therm_on = (thermometer < 0) ? 0 : (thermometer == 0);
+	therm_on = thermometer == 0;
 	REG_RMW_FIELD(ah, AR_PHY_65NM_CH0_RXTX4,
 		      AR_PHY_65NM_CH0_RXTX4_THERM_ON, therm_on);
 	if (pCap->chip_chainmask & BIT(1)) {
-		therm_on = (thermometer < 0) ? 0 : (thermometer == 1);
+		therm_on = thermometer == 1;
 		REG_RMW_FIELD(ah, AR_PHY_65NM_CH1_RXTX4,
 			      AR_PHY_65NM_CH0_RXTX4_THERM_ON, therm_on);
 	}
 	if (pCap->chip_chainmask & BIT(2)) {
-		therm_on = (thermometer < 0) ? 0 : (thermometer == 2);
+		therm_on = thermometer == 2;
 		REG_RMW_FIELD(ah, AR_PHY_65NM_CH2_RXTX4,
 			      AR_PHY_65NM_CH0_RXTX4_THERM_ON, therm_on);
 	}
-- 
2.7.0

[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 06/19] ath9k_htc: Delete unnecessary variable initialisation

[Julian Calaby]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>

In ath9k_hif_usb_rx_stream(), i is initialised in the for loop it's
used in.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Reviewed-by: Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>
[Rewrote commit message]
Signed-off-by: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hif_usb.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hif_usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hif_usb.c
index 8cbf490..e1c338c 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hif_usb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hif_usb.c
@@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ static void ath9k_hif_usb_rx_stream(struct hif_device_usb *hif_dev,
 				    struct sk_buff *skb)
 {
 	struct sk_buff *nskb, *skb_pool[MAX_PKT_NUM_IN_TRANSFER];
-	int index = 0, i = 0, len = skb->len;
+	int index = 0, i, len = skb->len;
 	int rx_remain_len, rx_pkt_len;
 	u16 pool_index = 0;
 	u8 *ptr;
-- 
2.7.0

[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 00/19] Pending Cleanup patches for 4.7

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Kalle,

This is a set of all patches in patchwork which were pending when the 4.6
merge window opened that meet the following criteria:

1. They're sane
2. They're either obviously correct, I can review them, or they've been
   reviewed or ACK'd by someone else.
3. They don't require any code changes to make them applyable.

That said, if anyone doesn't like any of these patches for any reason,
just give me a reason and I'll drop it.

I've split the pending patches into 4 sets as detailed below. All patches
have been rebased to apply in order on wireless-drivers-next at
wireless-drivers-next-for-davem-2016-03-14.


Git tree: https://github.com/SkUrRiEr/wireless-drivers-pending

Tags are listed below. Note that the tags stack, so applying
pending-cleanup-detail-4.6 will get you all of pending-cleanup-4.6.

By "4.6" I mean these patches were deferred when 4.6's merge window
opened. As there's nothing urgent here, I expect all of them to be applied
to 4.7 at the earliest. If this is version convention is stupid or
confusing, I'll change it to match the version I expect it to be applied
to and re-send this cover letter.


1. Cleanup:

These are the patches that just got lost or forgotten about. Nothing here
should be controversial at all, the only changes required were re-writing
commit messages for Markus Elfring's patches and a couple of others.
There's also a b43 change that stalled waiting for someone to test it on
BCMA.

branch: pending-cleanup
tag: pending-cleanup-4.6
bundle url: http://patchwork.kernel.org/bundle/skurrier/pending-cleanup%204.6/


2. Detail:

Patches that required a detailed review. This is two patches from Markus
Elfring which removed many unnecessary variable initialisations. Dan
Carpenter baulked at reviewing these. I've rewritten the commit messages
to go into detail as to how and where the variables are used and am
confident they are correct.

branch: pending-cleanup-detail
tag: pending-cleanup-detail-4.6
bundle url: http://patchwork.kernel.org/bundle/skurrier/pending-cleanup-detail%204.6/


3. More Work:

Patches that either needed the good bits split out or only fix part of
the problem and need some followup. I've written notes for each change and
added a patch where the additional requirements were obvious.

branch: pending-cleanup-morework
tag: pending-cleanup-morework-4.6
bundle url: http://patchwork.kernel.org/bundle/skurrier/pending-cleanup-morework%204.6/


4. Controversial:

A patch from Markus Elfring which people hated, however it fits my
criteria. I don't care if it gets applied or not.

branch: pending-cleanup-controversial
tag: pending-cleanup-controversial-4.6
bundle url: http://patchwork.kernel.org/bundle/skurrier/pending-cleanup-controversial%204.6/


At this point, everything in patchwork that's deferred is either:
1. Unreviewable by me (I poked the authors of most of the older patches
   yesterday)
2. An earlier version of a patch I picked up
3. Too "new" (less than a couple of months old)

(My appologies for the huge CC list, scripts/get_maintainer.pl --git can
 be somewhat verbose and I'm sending this to everyone who's getting an
 email as part of this series.)


Patches:

Byeoungwook Kim (1):
  rtlwifi: Implement 'rtl_addr_delay()' with a switch statement

Geliang Tang (4):
  ipw2x00: use to_pci_dev()
  wlcore: use to_delayed_work()
  wl1251: use to_delayed_work()
  rtlwifi: use to_delayed_work()

Ivan Safonov (1):
  ath9k: Remove unnecessary ?: operator

Jia-Ju Bai (5):
  iwl4965: Fix a null pointer dereference in il_tx_queue_free and
    il_cmd_queue_free
  b43: Fix memory leaks in b43_bus_dev_ssb_init and
    b43_bus_dev_bcma_init
  rtl818x_pci: Disable pci device in error handling code
  rtl818x_pci: Fix a memory leak in rtl8180_init_rx_ring
  iwl4965: Fix a memory leak in error handling code of __il4965_up

Julian Calaby (1):
  iwl4965: Fix more memory leaks in __il4965_up()

Markus Elfring (7):
  ath9k_htc: Delete unnecessary variable initialisation
  brcmfmac: Delete unnecessary variable initialisation
  iwlegacy: Return directly if allocation fails in il_eeprom_init()
  rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisation
  rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisation
  rsi: Move variable initialisation into error code
  iwlegacy: Rename label in il_eeprom_init()

 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_eeprom.c     |  6 ++---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hif_usb.c           |  2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/main.c           |  6 +++--
 .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c    |  2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/intel/ipw2x00/ipw2100.c       |  2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c     |  3 +++
 drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c       | 26 +++++++++++++---------
 drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl818x/rtl8180/dev.c |  8 ++++++-
 drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c        | 20 ++++++++++++-----
 drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/wifi.h        |  2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_91x_pkt.c             | 22 +++++++++---------
 drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/ps.c                |  2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c              | 10 ++++-----
 drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/ps.c                |  2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/scan.c              |  2 +-
 15 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)

-- 
2.7.0

[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 00/19] Pending Cleanup patches for 4.7

[Kalle Valo]

Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> writes:

> This is a set of all patches in patchwork which were pending when the 4.6
> merge window opened that meet the following criteria:
>
> 1. They're sane
> 2. They're either obviously correct, I can review them, or they've been
>    reviewed or ACK'd by someone else.
> 3. They don't require any code changes to make them applyable.
>
> That said, if anyone doesn't like any of these patches for any reason,
> just give me a reason and I'll drop it.
>
> I've split the pending patches into 4 sets as detailed below. All patches
> have been rebased to apply in order on wireless-drivers-next at
> wireless-drivers-next-for-davem-2016-03-14.

Thank you for working on this, this is very helpful.

I have deferred patch 14 and dropped patch 19[1], the rest I'm planning
to apply soon. I also tried to remove the original patches from deferred
queue by moving them to state "superseded", but I might missed
something.

[1] Oddly I cannot find patch 19 from patchwork, I don't know what
    happened to it. I do see it on the mailing list, though.

-- 
Kalle Valo

[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 00/19] Pending Cleanup patches for 4.7

[Kalle Valo]

Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> writes:

> Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This is a set of all patches in patchwork which were pending when the 4.6
>> merge window opened that meet the following criteria:
>>
>> 1. They're sane
>> 2. They're either obviously correct, I can review them, or they've been
>>    reviewed or ACK'd by someone else.
>> 3. They don't require any code changes to make them applyable.
>>
>> That said, if anyone doesn't like any of these patches for any reason,
>> just give me a reason and I'll drop it.
>>
>> I've split the pending patches into 4 sets as detailed below. All patches
>> have been rebased to apply in order on wireless-drivers-next at
>> wireless-drivers-next-for-davem-2016-03-14.
>
> Thank you for working on this, this is very helpful.
>
> I have deferred patch 14 and dropped patch 19[1], the rest I'm planning
> to apply soon. I also tried to remove the original patches from deferred
> queue by moving them to state "superseded", but I might missed
> something.
>
> [1] Oddly I cannot find patch 19 from patchwork, I don't know what
>     happened to it. I do see it on the mailing list, though.

Actually another nacked patch 16 also has disappeared from patchwork, so
I'm not going to apply that either. I'm starting to wonder that maybe
you removed these yourself from patchwork?

-- 
Kalle Valo

[ath9k-devel] [01/19] ath9k: Remove unnecessary ?: operator

[Kalle Valo]

> From: Ivan Safonov <insafonov@gmail.com>
> 
> "(thermometer < 0) ? 0 : (thermometer == X)" is equivalent to
> "thermometer == X" for X >= 0.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Safonov <insafonov@gmail.com>
> [Updated commit message]
> Signed-off-by: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>

Thanks, 16 patches applied to wireless-drivers-next.git:

0fef3c768037 ath9k: Remove unnecessary ?: operator
ea544aab42db ipw2x00: use to_pci_dev()
61383412f00d wlcore: use to_delayed_work()
d1162f0283f0 wl1251: use to_delayed_work()
4679f4132201 rtlwifi: use to_delayed_work()
cfbfbd13695c ath9k_htc: Delete unnecessary variable initialisation
9e12904a953c brcmfmac: Delete unnecessary variable initialisation
fb9693f04544 iwlegacy: Return directly if allocation fails in il_eeprom_init()
fe9b47944edf iwl4965: Fix a null pointer dereference in il_tx_queue_free and il_cmd_queue_free
96838d61102a b43: Fix memory leaks in b43_bus_dev_ssb_init and b43_bus_dev_bcma_init
1c76b4902c26 rtl818x_pci: Disable pci device in error handling code
8b28310efe24 rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisation
ab2ef1d68f62 rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisation
37190b269491 rsi: Move variable initialisation into error code
c2fd34469d16 iwl4965: Fix a memory leak in error handling code of __il4965_up
84d17a2a5a0f iwl4965: Fix more memory leaks in __il4965_up()

Kalle Valo

[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 00/19] Pending Cleanup patches for 4.7

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Kalle,

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> writes:
>
>> Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> This is a set of all patches in patchwork which were pending when the 4.6
>>> merge window opened that meet the following criteria:
>>>
>>> 1. They're sane
>>> 2. They're either obviously correct, I can review them, or they've been
>>>    reviewed or ACK'd by someone else.
>>> 3. They don't require any code changes to make them applyable.
>>>
>>> That said, if anyone doesn't like any of these patches for any reason,
>>> just give me a reason and I'll drop it.
>>>
>>> I've split the pending patches into 4 sets as detailed below. All patches
>>> have been rebased to apply in order on wireless-drivers-next at
>>> wireless-drivers-next-for-davem-2016-03-14.
>>
>> Thank you for working on this, this is very helpful.
>>
>> I have deferred patch 14 and dropped patch 19[1], the rest I'm planning
>> to apply soon. I also tried to remove the original patches from deferred
>> queue by moving them to state "superseded", but I might missed
>> something.

I'll check that later and give you a list of patchwork URLs for
anything you missed.

>> [1] Oddly I cannot find patch 19 from patchwork, I don't know what
>>     happened to it. I do see it on the mailing list, though.
>
> Actually another nacked patch 16 also has disappeared from patchwork, so
> I'm not going to apply that either. I'm starting to wonder that maybe
> you removed these yourself from patchwork?

I did do that: I updated both to "Rejected" when people NACKed them.

Should I not have done that? I thought I was making things easier for you.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby at gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/

[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 00/19] Pending Cleanup patches for 4.7

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Kalle,

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Kalle,
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> writes:
>>
>>> Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is a set of all patches in patchwork which were pending when the 4.6
>>>> merge window opened that meet the following criteria:
>>>>
>>>> 1. They're sane
>>>> 2. They're either obviously correct, I can review them, or they've been
>>>>    reviewed or ACK'd by someone else.
>>>> 3. They don't require any code changes to make them applyable.
>>>>
>>>> That said, if anyone doesn't like any of these patches for any reason,
>>>> just give me a reason and I'll drop it.
>>>>
>>>> I've split the pending patches into 4 sets as detailed below. All patches
>>>> have been rebased to apply in order on wireless-drivers-next at
>>>> wireless-drivers-next-for-davem-2016-03-14.
>>>
>>> Thank you for working on this, this is very helpful.
>>>
>>> I have deferred patch 14 and dropped patch 19[1], the rest I'm planning
>>> to apply soon. I also tried to remove the original patches from deferred
>>> queue by moving them to state "superseded", but I might missed
>>> something.
>
> I'll check that later and give you a list of patchwork URLs for
> anything you missed.

Ok, from the bundles I initially produced, you missed the following:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7939701/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8003841/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8049041/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8049011/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7940021/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8040161/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8040181/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8197881/

And this one has the status "changes requested", however I resubmitted
it as patch #15 without the stupid bits and you applied it:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8040201/

Beyond that, here's some earlier versions of the patches I picked up:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8197051/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7993931/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8040201/

This one should be dropped as it's too awful for me to endorse:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7940001/

And this one is obsolete as it's already been applied in some form:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8197071/

(If it'd make it easier for you, I can throw these all in a bundle.)

I'll poke people for reviews for patch 14 and there's also a patch I
missed in my first run-through that applies without changes, so I'll
give it a reviewed-by so it's back on your radar.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby at gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/

[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 00/19] Pending Cleanup patches for 4.7

[Kalle Valo]

Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> writes:

>>> [1] Oddly I cannot find patch 19 from patchwork, I don't know what
>>>     happened to it. I do see it on the mailing list, though.
>>
>> Actually another nacked patch 16 also has disappeared from patchwork, so
>> I'm not going to apply that either. I'm starting to wonder that maybe
>> you removed these yourself from patchwork?
>
> I did do that: I updated both to "Rejected" when people NACKed them.
>
> Should I not have done that? I thought I was making things easier for you.

That does help, but I started to wonder what happened to them (did I do
something wrong etc) before I realised that you actually dropped them
yourself. Patchwork is sometimes a bit clumsy like this, so maybe an
email reply like "dropping these from patchwork" or similar is a good
idea?

-- 
Kalle Valo

[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 00/19] Pending Cleanup patches for 4.7

[Kalle Valo]

Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kalle,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for working on this, this is very helpful.
>>>>
>>>> I have deferred patch 14 and dropped patch 19[1], the rest I'm planning
>>>> to apply soon. I also tried to remove the original patches from deferred
>>>> queue by moving them to state "superseded", but I might missed
>>>> something.
>>
>> I'll check that later and give you a list of patchwork URLs for
>> anything you missed.
>
> Ok, from the bundles I initially produced, you missed the following:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7939701/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8003841/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8049041/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8049011/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7940021/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8040161/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8040181/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8197881/

Changed these to "Superseded"

> And this one has the status "changes requested", however I resubmitted
> it as patch #15 without the stupid bits and you applied it:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8040201/

Ok, I changed it to Superseded.

> Beyond that, here's some earlier versions of the patches I picked up:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8197051/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7993931/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8040201/

Marked as Superseded.

> This one should be dropped as it's too awful for me to endorse:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7940001/

It's now "Rejected".

> And this one is obsolete as it's already been applied in some form:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8197071/

I put it to Superseded.

> (If it'd make it easier for you, I can throw these all in a bundle.)

No need, this was perfect.

> I'll poke people for reviews for patch 14 and there's also a patch I
> missed in my first run-through that applies without changes, so I'll
> give it a reviewed-by so it's back on your radar.

Thank you so much for all this, I appreciate it a lot.

-- 
Kalle Valo