Re: [PATCH 10/23] wireless: remove unnecessary unlikely()

Re: [PATCH 10/23] wireless: remove unnecessary unlikely()

[Kalle Valo]

+ linux-wireless

Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@gmail.com> writes:

> WARN_ON_ONCE() already contains an unlikely(), and the logical or of two of
> them is still unlikely(), so it's not necessary to wrap them into another.
>
> Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
> Cc: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>
> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>

IMHO you could fold patches 10, 11 and 12 into one to avoid having three
patches with duplicate titles. Or alternatively use proper driver
prefixes like "ath10k:", "b43:" and so on.

But how do you want these to be applied? For the wireless patches you
didn't Cc linux-wireless so our patchwork won't see them and hence I
can't take them. So if you want me to take these, please resend and
include linux-wireless.

-- 
Kalle Valo

Re: [PATCH 10/23] wireless: remove unnecessary unlikely()

[Igor Stoppa]

On 31/08/18 12:52, Kalle Valo wrote:
> + linux-wireless

> IMHO you could fold patches 10, 11 and 12 into one to avoid having three
> patches with duplicate titles. Or alternatively use proper driver
> prefixes like "ath10k:", "b43:" and so on.

I was wondering if it would be ok to fold them, but it's easier to fold 
than to split, so I started with 3

> But how do you want these to be applied? For the wireless patches you
> didn't Cc linux-wireless so our patchwork won't see them and hence I
> can't take them. So if you want me to take these, please resend and
> include linux-wireless.


ok, I was hoping to avoid joining the ml but it's done
I had patches for about 20 different trees, so I decided to first see if 
the patches could be taken in right away.
In at least one case (pinctrl) I got lucky :-)

--
thanks, igor