From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.eurecom.fr (smtp.eurecom.fr [193.55.113.210]) (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 1E05E17FE; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:39:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.55.113.210 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735911567; cv=none; b=eQxLrlXlvTKa4mtcaawyg8KFMAx87SY6IsVJOU87YBPy9ls6AZ1208s6Hos5h4WWXui6fzFy+NV6tjEg3agL6gMwDC/IdwA+gTYL6HHXZwiteikDXO1POlbt9yxTUx3HDyx6FizsTPWj2yjcyJJsaU3u7eIwCw0yeL6ATJrL/04= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735911567; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uY9i3M++jCJt8rk9Hjj58keMZJPyTpRD7BeOq8KwkpU=; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:References:Date:Cc:To:MIME-Version: Message-ID:Subject; b=snHK0vwaojmBWL4khmDClijT63UPAlJpANQP0fz49cUhaMLdf7q/Pge7mEsHRDutxxlkJ9aU1aHWJJu72q7ck9616f8psvPXM/xO0YgpaqDQLzwS8n0G+ioVp7ANklwXTbJ6CvBWxTBAx01NFfb70mlq55doFTMJ1Nf87qBlDyU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=eurecom.fr; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eurecom.fr; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eurecom.fr header.i=@eurecom.fr header.b=ot4gsJDs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.55.113.210 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=eurecom.fr Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eurecom.fr Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eurecom.fr header.i=@eurecom.fr header.b="ot4gsJDs" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=eurecom.fr; i=@eurecom.fr; q=dns/txt; s=default; t=1735911564; x=1767447564; h=from:in-reply-to:references:date:cc:to:mime-version: message-id:subject:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uY9i3M++jCJt8rk9Hjj58keMZJPyTpRD7BeOq8KwkpU=; b=ot4gsJDsLzNN3/DD2cKt2QEyt0P3bx/CVPLXsRSUZ6J9qUE8lg7jBL3Q NZ7AJIAz7ZKbMWfXQa4LIREqeMeQWOj04g1XqwUNEMdS0XuEvg013Sufi fcDfz7763hNOmKhecMWGUkm0ub3D5UlKkTxfj9krF86AXqj1VFxyeAzv0 A=; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: M8Z/I3T9Q6acm6eI01JcAQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 7Oea3LqbRS2SuXX2Fdgx6g== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,286,1728943200"; d="scan'208";a="28365752" Received: from quovadis.eurecom.fr ([10.3.2.233]) by drago1i.eurecom.fr with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2025 14:39:21 +0100 From: "Ariel Otilibili-Anieli" In-Reply-To: <20250103131002.GA100011@wp.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Forward: 88.183.119.157 References: <20241221124445.1094460-1-ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr> <20241221124445.1094460-2-ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr> <20250103085540.GA94204@wp.pl> <20250103131002.GA100011@wp.pl> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2025 14:39:21 +0100 Cc: "Daniel Golle" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Kalle Valo" , =?utf-8?q?Tomislav_Po=C5=BEega?= To: "Stanislaw Gruszka" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2f7a83-6777e880-a451-5cf12280@99910178> Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re=3A?= [PATCH 1/2] =?utf-8?q?rt2x00=3A?= Remove unusued value User-Agent: SOGoMail 5.11.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Stanislaw, hello Daniel; happy new year, On Friday, January 03, 2025 14:10 CET, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 11:40:52AM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 09:55:40AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > >=20 > > I agree with the likely intention here, however, the vendor driver > > also comes with the dead code, see > > https://github.com/lixuande/rt2860v2/blob/master/files/rt2860v2/com= mon/cmm=5Frf=5Fcal.c#L2690 > >=20 > > So this is certainly a bug in the vendor driver as well which got p= orted > > bug-by-bug to rt2x00... Not sure what is the best thing to do in th= is > > case. >=20 > As this was already tested and match vendor driver I would prefer > not to change behavior even if it looks suspicious. Thanks for having looked into this; I much appreciate your feedback. >From what you two said, I understand that the patch should remove the d= uplicate code, and not change the logic behind. Is this right? If so; then, I have nothing else to do. >=20 > Regards > Stanislaw >