From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f44.google.com (mail-ed1-f44.google.com [209.85.208.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 824C771 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 18:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f44.google.com with SMTP id bx20so19395532edb.12 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:30:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=99F53NVNWQBwxX1Mzz0xGwNtjs0DyLQjl7oHgfB7e+8=; b=Wva5nn9YWOZ7JK0xjBRFO6MIIoiOkmo+5WiqG5rmc9rc4vuYeRPW/Zi5S0Jd/ZbB4H uJ7XuXAoEtyvXMcHKFksOg+wGCBRrzeCAP9o1RMaC9cH28dCOFgGHtyZM1IAABNhxtOm Pd0GOz26XFK7UmEhGEbPqbtNlDALmhVnJEm6ZFBVmYlRKbbuhzefr360TMbaRzR74aMx ue/I84hF+zVXSL6Fdiq6HSK8QPt65kcCgPUE3Q/RIlaf9v0qpDxIgjuM7fDAAQpHl29I XqlBqrARrqOAZ1RL3gWe1rhvQZtgCTL8XrmeRgMLu7yz+YXhdmvt4EZxHmgoQs+gbu8y d8/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=99F53NVNWQBwxX1Mzz0xGwNtjs0DyLQjl7oHgfB7e+8=; b=VlEWtQrezT8qQNkjfQN5esh7vX3PBBvAHmkihAHU0RGq500yYPYKdbfXVu+ksvPMFx lLK0rjydK4doZ4S3RdjYj9G9EDr6+6ma9IP1kO1q+vwQVAr4CUGTGPrzjrl1nw6GFwX0 nfYNQIKxFT3+T7x1KA+i4Rgc6yw15I1/86BZqAvC2l9JaRh8TM9Rjeegv0pWIFpZMQkS X91ErJNg/49FmPdrYiarmQUYcQV89WWbPVcICChUwZHfjxbYKjxJiLZ0WWHsWquoihfs cFi5mx58o7WhG1IuB+BYeiouZSy9daRMs1MfiqMqpd/KYgFLY05O2wQmuMgs0mkGE4p0 Odcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533t5NqdvuEgzh7UfTlKvsGjBTmF7zPWyho2LH5Mla1BEQ4a+UTR qSI7kYvNGa8vLfUL3dKJg9o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy47WwQ5xWba4QPGSm3CH7izt0aWMyUyHG1rPlziXO6exjus11KkmyZgF6Yym7Y1NIcbJ0EQA== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:db9a:: with SMTP id u26mr35975916edt.292.1618338642983; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux.local (host-95-237-55-30.retail.telecomitalia.it. [95.237.55.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i5sm374101edv.68.2021.04.13.11.30.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Julia Lawall , outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] :staging: rtl8723bs: Remove useless led_blink_hdl() Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 20:30:41 +0200 Message-ID: <4666345.5ezhEZ0rgB@linux.local> In-Reply-To: <20210413182050.GJ6021@kadam> References: <20210413155908.8691-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> <3381109.TaO10cqo9c@linux.local> <20210413182050.GJ6021@kadam> X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:20:50 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 06:47:06PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:27:17 PM CEST Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2021, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:04:16 PM CEST Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2021, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > > > > > Removed the led_blink_hdl() function (declaration, definition, > > > > > > and > > > > > > caller code) because it's useless. It only seems to check > > > > > > whether > > > > > > or > > > > > > not a given pointer is NULL. There are other (simpler) means > > > > > > for > > > > > > that > > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c | 1 - > > > > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 9 --------- > > > > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/rtw_mlme_ext.h | 1 - > > > > > > 3 files changed, 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c > > > > > > b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c index > > > > > > 0297fbad7bce..4c44dfd21514 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c > > > > > > @@ -150,7 +150,6 @@ static struct cmd_hdl wlancmds[] = { > > > > > > > > > > > > GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(0, h2c_msg_hdl) /*58*/ > > > > > > GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(sizeof(struct SetChannelPlan_param), > > > > > > set_chplan_hdl) /*59*/> > > > > > > > > > > > > - GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(sizeof(struct LedBlink_param), > > > > > > > > led_blink_hdl) > > > > > > > > > > /*60*/ > > > > > > > > > > This is worrisome. Doyou fully understand the impact of this? > > > > > If > > > > > not, > > > > > the change is probably not a good idea. > > > > > > > > This is that macro definition: > > > > > > > > #define GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(size, cmd) {size, cmd}, > > > > > > > > struct C2HEvent_Header { > > > > > > > > #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN > > > > > > > > unsigned int len:16; > > > > unsigned int ID:8; > > > > unsigned int seq:8; > > > > > > > > #else > > > > > > > > unsigned int seq:8; > > > > unsigned int ID:8; > > > > unsigned int len:16; > > > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > unsigned int rsvd; > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > It's a bit convoluted with regard to my experience. Probably I > > > > don't > > > > understand it fully, but it seems to me to not having effects to > > > > the > > > > code where I removed its use within core/rtw_cmd.c. > > > > > > > > What am I missing? > > > > > > It seems that the function is being put into an array. Probably > > > someone > > > expects to find it there. Probably you have shifted all of the > > > functions that come afterwards back one slot so that they are all in > > > the wrong places. > > > > > > julia > > > > Thanks for your explanation. Obviously this implies that the function > > cannot be removed, unless one fill the slot that is deleted by to not > > calling this macro at the right moment. > > > > I also suppose that providing a function pointer with a NULL value > > wouldn't work either. > > It would work. That array is full of NULL function pointers. > Interesting, thanks. I'm going to remove that function and replace its name in the macro with a NULL function pointer. I couldn't believe it would work when I wrote about that. Thanks a lot, Fabio > > regards, > dan carpenter