+ linux-wireless
Igor Stoppa <[email protected]> writes:
> WARN_ON_ONCE() already contains an unlikely(), and the logical or of two of
> them is still unlikely(), so it's not necessary to wrap them into another.
>
> Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <[email protected]>
> Cc: Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kalle Valo <[email protected]>
IMHO you could fold patches 10, 11 and 12 into one to avoid having three
patches with duplicate titles. Or alternatively use proper driver
prefixes like "ath10k:", "b43:" and so on.
But how do you want these to be applied? For the wireless patches you
didn't Cc linux-wireless so our patchwork won't see them and hence I
can't take them. So if you want me to take these, please resend and
include linux-wireless.
--
Kalle Valo
On 31/08/18 12:52, Kalle Valo wrote:
> + linux-wireless
> IMHO you could fold patches 10, 11 and 12 into one to avoid having three
> patches with duplicate titles. Or alternatively use proper driver
> prefixes like "ath10k:", "b43:" and so on.
I was wondering if it would be ok to fold them, but it's easier to fold
than to split, so I started with 3
> But how do you want these to be applied? For the wireless patches you
> didn't Cc linux-wireless so our patchwork won't see them and hence I
> can't take them. So if you want me to take these, please resend and
> include linux-wireless.
ok, I was hoping to avoid joining the ml but it's done
I had patches for about 20 different trees, so I decided to first see if
the patches could be taken in right away.
In at least one case (pinctrl) I got lucky :-)
--
thanks, igor