From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6208B1DE4EC; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 07:41:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741160472; cv=none; b=OBnIlFP72oJz/0zURh5NNAXSSW9P8OUNypYN2EWJoY1qH4dk9Sz6hB8i+rPqrSPr+OYUcdwvOh88RFAIDDgOjjApI19S2lsTFz6I82BJa83e7DYwYQBv6NkqwRNXkBIPyUD9eDT9P1S5FZ4bUW9umS9ixp+HlEYLIpin1cBokYQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741160472; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LtWIFnniiqHthw+orxCSjnxOicCCXctZRD9e2kWFt+E=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=VqW6hzpGUTwbUcDvwq5KO9vcc9Kc0B1tSisJDfRwx8gDITkk4X/xqwmc3a4WBN1bd7CYDl7dkFzxlId9pQJ3m/oz3WQ2AJPX18BUhqVLfieb0SJFAtMWfRn3ntXlydHvJjhuktJGzalJ9bOgK95bAA+S0oFLSZCzHN6ZLhXEvOA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=gktz8Uhk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="gktz8Uhk" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=pL0ILPUfiLo8D7078PGmpAnb8Y1iCaIIVKVFNqbbuys=; t=1741160466; x=1742370066; b=gktz8UhkOKZ+gaeM6Vc+P6pysmrdHQIjpuBomsTO/IZKqvy FbHB8J/SQ40UcdLVDfF0x1hV8DD+3QlMfSeeYppZe3UdeaJPxh3pUHxZ5fOLaN8kntYtI3ozqqtiW RP0lrjYALKAT6U1vHrSKFxqXUQHEhY5brdqMzghiy2enjWPytlHkBc5dqdYRylx0bDUQw8IA7QbdM 8g2wglkE2CoGzsEJFnkgDVynE6QWcW5934DoQvKJmwz6jLs88Lc/x2yzCvx2xqn6TTsxvyf1lTK6p NcSaKEQuTWhOcxh45AEkUsq9Y9g+8vofMEMA0+je0EPCyWq6t7ZflnZ5GpH5a8KQ==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1tpjN5-00000001bf5-3dpq; Wed, 05 Mar 2025 08:40:52 +0100 Message-ID: <98e39be3351190ec71ffb067c062c82883ebef24.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] wfx: add support for WoWLAN on Silabs WF200 From: Johannes Berg To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me?= Pouiller , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kalle Valo , linux-devel@silabs.com Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 08:40:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: <2018315.usQuhbGJ8B@nb0018864> References: <20250302144731.117409-1-jerome.pouiller@silabs.com> <2018315.usQuhbGJ8B@nb0018864> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.3 (3.54.3-1.fc41) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2025-03-04 at 16:22 +0100, J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Pouiller wrote: >=20 > Patchwork also reports two warnings that I am going to ignore: >=20 > - "Target tree name not specified in the subject", I assume it > is "wireless-next", but in the doubt I prefer to refrain. It should be wireless-next for anything that isn't fixes for the current cycle, and please do add it - without it the checker won't always be able to pick up the patches to test them: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/ec3a3d891acfe5ed8763271a1df4151d75da= f25f.camel@sipsolutions.net/ > - Lines are larger then 80 columns. Checkpatch.pl now accepts up > to 100 columns. I am not aware any local exception in net/, right? It looks like that's not documented (https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html), but I had a conversation with Jakub about this in the past and he prefers to have the checks still at 80 because people were, in his telling, abusing it in a way and making really long lines for no good reason. I'm not going to be super strict about it, but I'd encourage everyone who sees that warning to see if they can do better. In this particular case, it's just a comment, so could trivially be wrapped, but I'm not going to complain about 85 columns. If someone's going to 100 columns with (text) comments though then I think that'd raise some eyebrows. Narrower text is easier to read anyway. johannes