| Message ID | 90fe6325e407d35a18fa8c8cb7eaa269968d6426.1458262312.git.julian.calaby@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:29:39PM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > > Rename a jump label according to the current Linux coding style convention. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > [Rewrote commit title] > Signed-off-by: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> > > --- > > This was controversial when introduced, however the change is obvious and > harmless and is, in the worst case, just churn. > > I'm only including this as it meets my criteria for sheparding pending > patches: it's sane, obviously correct or reviewable by me, and doesn't > require any work to apply. > > This does meet those requirements, however given how controviersial it was > when introduced, I'm not expecting people to be enthusiastic about > applying it. I don't see the sense of that change, NACK Stanislaw -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Stanislaw, On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:29:39PM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote: >> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> >> >> Rename a jump label according to the current Linux coding style convention. >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> >> [Rewrote commit title] >> Signed-off-by: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> >> >> --- >> >> This was controversial when introduced, however the change is obvious and >> harmless and is, in the worst case, just churn. >> >> I'm only including this as it meets my criteria for sheparding pending >> patches: it's sane, obviously correct or reviewable by me, and doesn't >> require any work to apply. >> >> This does meet those requirements, however given how controviersial it was >> when introduced, I'm not expecting people to be enthusiastic about >> applying it. > > I don't see the sense of that change, NACK Fair enough, I wasn't expecting this to get applied anyway. Consider it dropped. Thanks,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:29:39PM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > > Rename a jump label according to the current Linux coding style convention. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > [Rewrote commit title] > Signed-off-by: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> > > --- > > This was controversial when introduced, however the change is obvious and > harmless and is, in the worst case, just churn. > > I'm only including this as it meets my criteria for sheparding pending > patches: it's sane, obviously correct or reviewable by me, and doesn't > require any work to apply. > > This does meet those requirements, however given how controviersial it was > when introduced, I'm not expecting people to be enthusiastic about > applying it. > > Thanks, It's a bad idea to mark this sort of patch as controversial. It's bikeshed stuff. Either apply it or don't but don't lets spend any more time thinking about it. Actual controversial patches have a long term impact. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Dan, On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:29:39PM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote: >> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> >> >> Rename a jump label according to the current Linux coding style convention. >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> >> [Rewrote commit title] >> Signed-off-by: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> >> >> --- >> >> This was controversial when introduced, however the change is obvious and >> harmless and is, in the worst case, just churn. >> >> I'm only including this as it meets my criteria for sheparding pending >> patches: it's sane, obviously correct or reviewable by me, and doesn't >> require any work to apply. >> >> This does meet those requirements, however given how controviersial it was >> when introduced, I'm not expecting people to be enthusiastic about >> applying it. >> >> Thanks, > > It's a bad idea to mark this sort of patch as controversial. It's > bikeshed stuff. Either apply it or don't but don't lets spend any more > time thinking about it. > > Actual controversial patches have a long term impact. Noted. I'll label anything like this (someone's done the work but it makes no difference if it's applied) as "bikeshed" or "churn" in the future. Thanks,
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c index 2cc3d42..a1b1360 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c @@ -759,7 +759,7 @@ il_eeprom_init(struct il_priv *il) IL_EEPROM_ACCESS_TIMEOUT); if (ret < 0) { IL_ERR("Time out reading EEPROM[%d]\n", addr); - goto done; + goto release_semaphore; } r = _il_rd(il, CSR_EEPROM_REG); e[addr / 2] = cpu_to_le16(r >> 16); @@ -769,7 +769,7 @@ il_eeprom_init(struct il_priv *il) il_eeprom_query16(il, EEPROM_VERSION)); ret = 0; -done: +release_semaphore: il->ops->eeprom_release_semaphore(il); err: