On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 04:11:18PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 06/30/2011 12:19 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >On 06/30/2011 10:37 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >>That's pretty ugly. Better to leave the original in and ignore the
> >>checkpatch warning. Or maybe do something like this:
> >>
> >> for (idx = 0; (int) idx< WLC_MAXBSSCFG; idx++) { \
> >> cfg = (wlc)->bsscfg[idx]; \
> >> if (!cfg) \
> >> continue; \
> >>
> >>Then #define END_FOREACH_BSS() }
> >Hi Dan,
> >
> >I agree this is not the nicest solution. It was a checkpatch error so we
> >felt an urge to fix it. A warning would have been easier to ignore. I
> >will have a look and see whether the patch can be dropped without
> >issues. Your feedback is noted so I will look for a better iteration
> >solution to replace this.
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Can you please drop this patch from the series? There are no
> dependencies with the other patches.
Now dropped.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
