From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:33830 "EHLO mail-pg0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756245AbdCTUFz (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:05:55 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 21so49274408pgg.1 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:05:51 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Kalle Valo Cc: Amitkumar Karwar , Nishant Sarmukadam , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rajat Jain Subject: Re: [4/4] mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code Message-ID: <20170320200550.GA12143@google.com> (sfid-20170320_210648_422330_D5FAFE96) References: <20170311013924.73348-5-briannorris@chromium.org> <20170320170835.5ED1C609C6@smtp.codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170320170835.5ED1C609C6@smtp.codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Kalle, On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:08:35PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote: > Brian Norris wrote: > > This code was duplicated as part of the PCIe FLR code added to this > > driver. Let's de-duplicate it to: > > > > * make things easier to read (mwifiex_pcie_free_buffers() now has a > > corresponding mwifiex_pcie_alloc_buffers()) > > * reduce likelihood of bugs > > * make error logging equally verbose > > * save lines of code! > > > > Also drop some of the commentary that isn't really needed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris > > Failed to apply: > > fatal: sha1 information is lacking or useless (drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c). > error: could not build fake ancestor > Applying: mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code > Patch failed at 0001 mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code > The copy of the patch that failed is found in: .git/rebase-apply/patch > > Patch set to Changes Requested. This applies fine to your wireless-drivers/master branch for me, where patches 1-3 were applied. Are you applying this to wireless-drivers-next? It's quite understandable that patch 4 wouldn't apply there, as you've stripped out the previous patches... Brian