From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:60771 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221AbcAEIaR (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 03:30:17 -0500 Subject: Re: rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in rsi_send_mgmt_pkt() To: Julian Calaby References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5687E169.4070704@users.sourceforge.net> <5687E203.1070404@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104092857.GD5284@mwanda> <568A4CFF.8060600@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104114849.GH5284@mwanda> <568A668D.8090007@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: Dan Carpenter , linux-wireless , netdev , Kalle Valo , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <568B7F06.1010500@users.sourceforge.net> (sfid-20160105_093039_247560_46110C08) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:29:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > That said, if you figure out some change that produces significant > reductions in code or binary size on multiple architectures without > making things more complicated, less readable or making the code or > binary size larger, then by all means propose it. Are you looking also for "a proof" that such changes are worthwhile? > "This makes things smaller" carries much more weight than > "I think this is better". Can the discussed implementation of a function like "rsi_send_mgmt_pkt" become a bit smaller by the deletion of extra variable initialisations > Almost all of the changes you've proposed that have seen any > discussion whatsoever fall into the latter category. Thanks for your interesting feedback. Can a further constructive dialogue evolve from the presented information? Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:29:58 +0000 Subject: Re: rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in rsi_send_mgmt_pkt() Message-Id: <568B7F06.1010500@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5687E169.4070704@users.sourceforge.net> <5687E203.1070404@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104092857.GD5284@mwanda> <568A4CFF.8060600@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104114849.GH5284@mwanda> <568A668D.8090007@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julian Calaby Cc: Dan Carpenter , linux-wireless , netdev , Kalle Valo , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall > That said, if you figure out some change that produces significant > reductions in code or binary size on multiple architectures without > making things more complicated, less readable or making the code or > binary size larger, then by all means propose it. Are you looking also for "a proof" that such changes are worthwhile? > "This makes things smaller" carries much more weight than > "I think this is better". Can the discussed implementation of a function like "rsi_send_mgmt_pkt" become a bit smaller by the deletion of extra variable initialisations > Almost all of the changes you've proposed that have seen any > discussion whatsoever fall into the latter category. Thanks for your interesting feedback. Can a further constructive dialogue evolve from the presented information? Regards, Markus