On Saturday 07 June 2014 19:01:20 Larry Finger wrote:
> As you have learned here, automatically making changes suggested by some tool
> may convert a visible bug into one that is invisible, and only found by a
> detailed line-by-line examination of the code, and that is unlikely to
> happen.
> Please be careful.
>
> From everything I see, the test in all drivers should be
>
> if ((bt_msr & MSR_AP) == MSR_AP)
That only happens to be case because MSR_INFRA | MSR_ADHOC == MSR_AP. This
seems to be the intent:
#define MSR_MASK 0x03
if ((bt_msr & MSR_MASK) == MSR_AP)
In rtl8192se, there are also MSR_LINK_... constants covering MSR_...
and in addition, there is a MSR_LINK_MASK. These macros are quite
redundant though given the other definitions, but the mask is still
nice to have I guess.
Also, personally I would submit just one patch touching all drivers, but
I see that Rickard has submitted a bunch of patches (without cover letter
either, making it more difficult to group them). What would you prefer,
a single patch touching multiple drivers (as the changes are mostly the
same) or split patches?
Kind regards,
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
