Le 27/04/2023 à 06:35, Kalle Valo a écrit :
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet-39ZsbGIQGT5GWvitb5QawA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_vdevs() and ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_bcn() really
look the same as list_count_nodes(), so use the latter instead of hand
writing it.
The first ones use list_for_each_entry() and the other list_for_each(), but
they both count the number of nodes in the list.
While at it, also remove to prototypes of non-existent functions.
Based on the names and prototypes, it is likely that they should be
equivalent to list_count_nodes().
Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet-39ZsbGIQGT5GWvitb5QawA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Un-tested
I'll run sanity tests on ath11k patches. I'll also add "Compile tested
only" to the commit log.
Oh, and ath11k patches go to ath tree, not net-next.
Hi,
[adding Joe Perches]
maybe checkpatch could be instrumented for that?
Something that would print a warning if the MAINTAINERS file has a git
repo in T: or if F: states something related to 'net'.
WARNING: Your patch is against the xxx.git repo but the subject of the
mail does not reflect it. Should [PATCH xxx] be used instead?
Also make sure that it applies cleanly on xxx.git to ease merge process.
WARNING: Your patch is related to 'net'. Such patches should state
[PATCH net] when related to bug fix, or [PATCH net-next] otherwise.
Eventually, something if net-next is closed?
What do you think?
Would it be possible? Would it help?
CJ
