Return-path: Received: from mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.64]:29119 "EHLO mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751059AbbAELGp (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 06:06:45 -0500 Message-ID: <54AA7042.50207@broadcom.com> (sfid-20150105_120702_631203_7C9BE27F) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 12:06:42 +0100 From: Arend van Spriel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kalle Valo CC: Rickard Strandqvist , Larry Finger , Brett Rudley , "Hante Meuleman" , Fabian Frederick , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , , Network Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcm80211: brcmsmac: dma: Remove some unused functions References: <1420332469-5907-1-git-send-email-rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se> <54A8DBF4.4050202@lwfinger.net> <871tn933jc.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <871tn933jc.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/05/15 11:49, Kalle Valo wrote: > Rickard Strandqvist writes: > >> As I hope you can see I have made some changes regarding the >> subject-line. Thought it was an advantage to be able to see which file >> I actually removed something from. There seems to be a big focus on >> getting right on subject-line right in recent weeks. >> >> I wonder why there is a script that takes a file name, and respond >> with an appropriate subject line? Is there a script for this? Anyway, I would say driver name is enough. Enough about the subject line ;-) I would like to give some general remarks as you seem to touch a lot of kernel code. First off, I think it is good to remove unused stuff. However, I would like some more explanation on your methodology apart from "partially found by using a static code analysis program". So a cover-letter explaining that would have been nice (maybe still is). Things like Kconfig option can affect whether function are used or not so how did you cover that. Regards, Arend > I don't think you can really automate this as some drivers do this a bit > differently. You always need to manually check the commit log. > >> But ok, I change my script accordingly. Should I submit the patch again? > > Yes, please resubmit. >