From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753521AbbAEK3F (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 05:29:05 -0500 Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.72]:8281 "EHLO sabertooth01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752979AbbAEK3B (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 05:29:01 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7671"; a="80995180" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,698,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="16802967" From: Kalle Valo To: Rickard Strandqvist CC: Larry Finger , Chaoming Li , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Fengguang Wu , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Network Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: rtlwifi: btcoexist: halbtc8821a2ant: Remove some unused functions References: <1420230361-1862-1-git-send-email-rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se> <54A786A4.2050202@lwfinger.net> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 12:28:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Rickard Strandqvist's message of "Sat, 3 Jan 2015 13:03:02 +0100") Message-ID: <87d26t34in.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanexm01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.81) To NALASEXR01G.na.qualcomm.com (10.49.56.53) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rickard Strandqvist writes: > I know that you have been told that including "net: wireless:" in the > subject line is discouraged. Please do not do this again. The staging > directory is different as GregKH uses "staging:" in the subject to route > patches, but wireless does not. > > As to the patch, NACK for the simple reason that I am currently working on > a number of changes to btcoexist. Some of these routines may end up being > removed, but others will not. Having your patch remove them, and one of > mine adding them back just constitutes a lot of churning of the source. In > addition, it greatly increases the probability of the source trees becoming > unsynchronized and getting merge conflicts. > > I do not recognize that there has been no diskution on the subject of "net: > wireless:" I mentioned about this in one your earlier patches, but I guess you didn't get the mail because I got a bounce: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/24/222 -- Kalle Valo