[PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[Wey-Yi Guy]

remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused

Signed-off-by: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org> # .35+: c91d015: iwl3945: remove plcp check
Cc: stable@kernel.org  # 2.6.35+
---
 drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c
index 3eb14fd..eb82341 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c
@@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ static void iwl3945_accumulative_statistics(struct iwl_priv *priv,
  * When the plcp error is exceeding the thresholds, reset the radio
  * to improve the throughput.
  */
-static bool iwl3945_good_plcp_health(struct iwl_priv *priv,
+static bool __maybe_unused iwl3945_good_plcp_health(struct iwl_priv *priv,
 				struct iwl_rx_packet *pkt)
 {
 	bool rc = true;
-- 
1.7.0.4

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[Stanislaw Gruszka]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:16:33AM -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
> Cc: <stable@kernel.org> # .35+: c91d015: iwl3945: remove plcp check
> Cc: stable@kernel.org  # 2.6.35+
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c
> index 3eb14fd..eb82341 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c
> @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ static void iwl3945_accumulative_statistics(struct iwl_priv *priv,
>   * When the plcp error is exceeding the thresholds, reset the radio
>   * to improve the throughput.
>   */
> -static bool iwl3945_good_plcp_health(struct iwl_priv *priv,
> +static bool __maybe_unused iwl3945_good_plcp_health(struct iwl_priv *priv,
>  				struct iwl_rx_packet *pkt)
>  {
>  	bool rc = true;

I was aware about that warning, but did not fix it, because when I compile
kernel, I can see lot's of other warnings and I have plan to clean
that iwl3945 code.

Does it something that really need to be fixed in -stable? I mean
should we bother stable maintainers about that?

Stanislaw

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[wwguy]

Hi Stanislaw,

On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 06:49 -0800, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:16:33AM -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
> > Cc: <stable@kernel.org> # .35+: c91d015: iwl3945: remove plcp check
> > Cc: stable@kernel.org  # 2.6.35+
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
I see your point, but I also think it des not mean other driver doing
bad, so we can do it too. do you agree? I like to see the iwlwifi driver
as clean as possible (do our best :-))

hope it is ok for you.

Wey

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[Stanislaw Gruszka]

Hi Wey

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:22:49AM -0800, wwguy wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 06:49 -0800, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:16:33AM -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
> > > Cc: <stable@kernel.org> # .35+: c91d015: iwl3945: remove plcp check
> > > Cc: stable@kernel.org  # 2.6.35+
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c |    2 +-
> > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > 
> I see your point, but I also think it des not mean other driver doing
> bad, so we can do it too. do you agree?

Fully agree :-)

> I like to see the iwlwifi driver
> as clean as possible (do our best :-))
> hope it is ok for you.

Of course it is. But I do not complained about fixing warning, but about
posting it to -stable. Thats clearly not -stable fix as stated in
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt .

I should have add that __maybe_unused to my patch, but I didn't.
What we could do now is fix warning in upstream and live with it
in -stable .

Stanislaw

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[Johannes Berg]

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused

Why not remove the function instead?

johannes

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[wwguy]

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:55 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> 
> Why not remove the function instead?
> 
I guess we can remove it in legacy driver

Wey
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[wwguy]

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:06 -0800, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> Hi Wey
> 
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:22:49AM -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 06:49 -0800, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:16:33AM -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: <stable@kernel.org> # .35+: c91d015: iwl3945: remove plcp check
> > > > Cc: stable@kernel.org  # 2.6.35+
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-3945.c |    2 +-
> > > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > I see your point, but I also think it des not mean other driver doing
> > bad, so we can do it too. do you agree?
> 
> Fully agree :-)
> 
> > I like to see the iwlwifi driver
> > as clean as possible (do our best :-))
> > hope it is ok for you.
> 
> Of course it is. But I do not complained about fixing warning, but about
> posting it to -stable. Thats clearly not -stable fix as stated in
> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt .
> 
> I should have add that __maybe_unused to my patch, but I didn't.
> What we could do now is fix warning in upstream and live with it
> in -stable .
> 
yeap, I agree with you , no need to go to _stable

Wey

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[Johannes Berg]

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:25 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:55 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > 
> > Why not remove the function instead?
> > 
> I guess we can remove it in legacy driver

But it's a 3945 specific function, and never used, so ...??

johannes

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[wwguy]

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:28 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:25 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:55 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > > 
> > > Why not remove the function instead?
> > > 
> > I guess we can remove it in legacy driver
> 
> But it's a 3945 specific function, and never used, so ...??
> 
I mean we should remove this function in legacy driver after driver
split

Wey
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[Johannes Berg]

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:48 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:28 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:25 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:55 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > > > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > > > 
> > > > Why not remove the function instead?
> > > > 
> > > I guess we can remove it in legacy driver
> > 
> > But it's a 3945 specific function, and never used, so ...??
> > 
> I mean we should remove this function in legacy driver after driver
> split

I just don't see why we can't remove it right now?

johannes

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[wwguy]

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:54 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:48 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:28 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:25 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:55 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > > > > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why not remove the function instead?
> > > > > 
> > > > I guess we can remove it in legacy driver
> > > 
> > > But it's a 3945 specific function, and never used, so ...??
> > > 
> > I mean we should remove this function in legacy driver after driver
> > split
> 
> I just don't see why we can't remove it right now?
> 
we can do it for _stable, for mainstream, all 3945 will move to separate
driver anyway.

Wey
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[John W. Linville]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 07:57:33AM -0800, wwguy wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:54 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:48 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:28 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:25 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:55 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > > > > > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why not remove the function instead?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > I guess we can remove it in legacy driver
> > > > 
> > > > But it's a 3945 specific function, and never used, so ...??
> > > > 
> > > I mean we should remove this function in legacy driver after driver
> > > split
> > 
> > I just don't see why we can't remove it right now?
> > 
> we can do it for _stable, for mainstream, all 3945 will move to separate
> driver anyway.

...where it will still be unused.  No?

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[wwguy]

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 12:10 -0800, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 07:57:33AM -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:54 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:48 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:28 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:25 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:55 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > > > > > > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Why not remove the function instead?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > I guess we can remove it in legacy driver
> > > > > 
> > > > > But it's a 3945 specific function, and never used, so ...??
> > > > > 
> > > > I mean we should remove this function in legacy driver after driver
> > > > split
> > > 
> > > I just don't see why we can't remove it right now?
> > > 
> > we can do it for _stable, for mainstream, all 3945 will move to separate
> > driver anyway.
> 
> ...where it will still be unused.  No?
> 
we will remove it from our legacy driver

Wey

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[John W. Linville]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:31:00PM -0800, wwguy wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 12:10 -0800, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 07:57:33AM -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:54 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:48 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:28 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:25 -0800, wwguy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:55 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Why not remove the function instead?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I guess we can remove it in legacy driver
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But it's a 3945 specific function, and never used, so ...??
> > > > > > 
> > > > > I mean we should remove this function in legacy driver after driver
> > > > > split
> > > > 
> > > > I just don't see why we can't remove it right now?
> > > > 
> > > we can do it for _stable, for mainstream, all 3945 will move to separate
> > > driver anyway.
> > 
> > ...where it will still be unused.  No?
> > 
> we will remove it from our legacy driver

I don't really see any reason to wait, so let's just remove it now. :-)

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] iwl3945: iwl3945_good_plcp_health might not used

[David Miller]

From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:05:17 -0500

> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:31:00PM -0800, wwguy wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 12:10 -0800, John W. Linville wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 07:57:33AM -0800, wwguy wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:54 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:48 -0800, wwguy wrote:
>> > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:28 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> > > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 07:25 -0800, wwguy wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 01:55 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:16 -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > remove plcp check for 3945, mark the function __maybe_unused
>> > > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > > Why not remove the function instead?
>> > > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > I guess we can remove it in legacy driver
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > But it's a 3945 specific function, and never used, so ...??
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > I mean we should remove this function in legacy driver after driver
>> > > > > split
>> > > > 
>> > > > I just don't see why we can't remove it right now?
>> > > > 
>> > > we can do it for _stable, for mainstream, all 3945 will move to separate
>> > > driver anyway.
>> > 
>> > ...where it will still be unused.  No?
>> > 
>> we will remove it from our legacy driver
> 
> I don't really see any reason to wait, so let's just remove it now. :-)

It's now done in net-2.6