Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove unused variable and DBG_88E in hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c

From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
Cc: Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, straube.linux@gmail.com,
	martin@kaiser.cx, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove unused variable and DBG_88E in hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:01:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <325822103.EpFXLVovdo@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <11475165.p2zfeMNkXv@localhost.localdomain>

On Monday, August 16, 2021 8:55:06 AM CEST Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 1:05:18 AM CEST Phillip Potter wrote:
> > Remove set but unused variable init_rate from rtl8188e_Add_RateATid
> > function in hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c, as it fixes a kernel test robot warning.
> > Removing the call to get_highest_rate_idx has no side effects here so is
> > safe.
> > 
> > Also remove the DBG_88E macro call in this function, as it is not
> > particularly clear in my opinion. Additionally, rename variable
> > shortGIrate to short_gi_rate to conform to kernel camel case rules,
> > and improve general spacing around operators, some of which triggers
> > checkpatch 'CHECK' messages. These are not related to the test robot
> > warning.
> > 
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
> > ---
> > 
> >  drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c | 22 +++++++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> Dear Philip,
> 
> I'm sorry but, although every change here is fine, I cannot ack your patch 
as-
> is. It shouldn't address so many different issues all at once, according to
> the best practices in patching and the kernel development rules.
> 
> I understand that you think that, while you are at the removal of 
"init_rate",
> why shouldn't I address all other trivial issues at once?
> 
> Even if the patch is short and it probably doesn't require particular hard
> effort to review it, that mix-up of different works shouldn't be done, 
mainly
> because this attitude could potentially lead you to add more and more
> different work in future patches. Where is the limit? Why not add some more
> different works next time you find some more problems into the same file/
> directory?
> 
> If I were you I'd, at least, prepare a series of two or three patches:
> 
> 1/3 - Remove init_rate as reported by KTR;
> 2/3 - Remove unneeded DBG_88E macro;
> 3/3 - Do some clean-up of rtl8188e_cmd.c;
> 
> Perhaps patches 2/3 and 3/3 could be merged into one, but I'm not really 
sure.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Fabio

Furthermore, I forgot to say that the "Subject" should summarize with few 
words the whole work you do and in this case it is not what it does.

Fabio