Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753486AbaFHKgO (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jun 2014 06:36:14 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:65379 "EHLO mail-ob0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751907AbaFHKgM (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jun 2014 06:36:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1436639.AmJiDmeQZF@al> References: <1402151419-18296-1-git-send-email-rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se> <5393A7D0.2080700@lwfinger.net> <1436639.AmJiDmeQZF@al> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 12:36:11 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: rtlwifi: rtl8192de: hw.c: Cleaning up conjunction always evaluates to false From: Rickard Strandqvist To: Peter Wu Cc: Larry Finger , Chaoming Li , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Network Development , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Damn, there I was bit too fast :-( Then we use MSR_MASK instead, new patch then. But I will wait a day? Or what is long enough to be sure that nobody else have any objections? How is this usually resolved? Sure, I can send a patch for all the files instead. However, earlier received complaints when I sent patches extending over more than one file. I'll check again how the cover letter works. Although when I try with my send patch mail script it did not work as I wanted. Best regards Rickard Strandqvist 2014-06-08 11:26 GMT+02:00 Peter Wu : > On Saturday 07 June 2014 19:01:20 Larry Finger wrote: >> As you have learned here, automatically making changes suggested by some tool >> may convert a visible bug into one that is invisible, and only found by a >> detailed line-by-line examination of the code, and that is unlikely to happen. >> Please be careful. >> >> From everything I see, the test in all drivers should be >> >> if ((bt_msr & MSR_AP) == MSR_AP) > > That only happens to be case because MSR_INFRA | MSR_ADHOC == MSR_AP. This > seems to be the intent: > > #define MSR_MASK 0x03 > if ((bt_msr & MSR_MASK) == MSR_AP) > > In rtl8192se, there are also MSR_LINK_... constants covering MSR_... > and in addition, there is a MSR_LINK_MASK. These macros are quite > redundant though given the other definitions, but the mask is still > nice to have I guess. > > Also, personally I would submit just one patch touching all drivers, but > I see that Rickard has submitted a bunch of patches (without cover letter > either, making it more difficult to group them). What would you prefer, > a single patch touching multiple drivers (as the changes are mostly the > same) or split patches? > > Kind regards, > Peter > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/