From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in rsi_send_mgmt_pkt() Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:29:58 +0100 Message-ID: <568B7F06.1010500@users.sourceforge.net> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5687E169.4070704@users.sourceforge.net> <5687E203.1070404@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104092857.GD5284@mwanda> <568A4CFF.8060600@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104114849.GH5284@mwanda> <568A668D.8090007@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dan Carpenter , linux-wireless , netdev , Kalle Valo , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall To: Julian Calaby Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > That said, if you figure out some change that produces significant > reductions in code or binary size on multiple architectures without > making things more complicated, less readable or making the code or > binary size larger, then by all means propose it. Are you looking also for "a proof" that such changes are worthwhile? > "This makes things smaller" carries much more weight than > "I think this is better". Can the discussed implementation of a function like "rsi_send_mgmt_pkt" become a bit smaller by the deletion of extra variable initialisations > Almost all of the changes you've proposed that have seen any > discussion whatsoever fall into the latter category. Thanks for your interesting feedback. Can a further constructive dialogue evolve from the presented information? Regards, Markus