Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > However, with all this, I think I'd simply not take any chances - the >> > patch isn't exactly invasive and in some cases (for example the first >> > hunk of the patch) will even improve the code to the point where the >> > compiler could warn about uninitialized usage of the pointer when the >> > code gets modified to use it in case of !txq->sta. >> > >> > I'd take it, but I guess it's Kalle's decision :) >> >> Yeah, I'm leaning towards Johannes. These are not really invasive. > > Thanks, and sorry about the checkpatch -- I did run checkpatch on it but > for some reason my version only complained about some of them. I actually have a custom script which enables (and disables) various checkpatch checks, most likely that's why you didn't see it. https://github.com/qca/qca-swiss-army-knife/blob/master/tools/scripts/ath10k/ath10k-check -- Kalle Valo-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
