From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1C6C70 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCDB360C40; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:06:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1618329975; bh=iVk4ofLtaLgfxOuElcRqpxORDJL5HmaPNe6CvxJHhhw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RMUaFgkd6B45Cczvm272yabgUdJA+06hW6PZ3pfrR60fNoDghNoQgFPyF8WO/NZFF s/+5agp31AB/wtqz4Bpyrsm7x641Xfo8noLe+qMUzthidL6mpegw6yGi+ncjWmjpjn OUOdVgqmFkSQMcR2HbrdqQj9Gtk7y+i9q8eqprW4= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 18:06:12 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Fabio M. De Francesco" Cc: outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] :staging: rtl8723bs: Remove useless led_blink_hdl() Message-ID: References: <20210413155908.8691-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210413155908.8691-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:59:08PM +0200, 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. But you do not actually do that here. Why not? You just removed something, does it still work properly with that removal? > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco Why the leading ":" in your subject line? > --- > 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(-) Does this patch require some other patch to be applied first? thanks, greg k-h