On Thu 2016-11-24 14:27:13, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 22:44 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Thu 2016-11-24 12:05:25, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 12:05 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Remove duplicate code from _tx routines.
> > >
> > > trivia:
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > >
> > > []
> > > > @@ -1960,6 +1960,38 @@ static void stmmac_tso_allocator(struct
> > > > stmmac_priv *priv, unsigned int des,
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static void stmmac_xmit_common(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device
> > > > *dev, int nfrags, struct dma_desc *desc)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct stmmac_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (unlikely(stmmac_tx_avail(priv) <= (MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1))) {
> > > > + if (netif_msg_hw(priv))
> > > > + pr_debug("%s: stop transmitted packets\n",
> > > > __func__);
> > >
> > > netif_dbg(priv, hw, dev, "%s: stop transmitted packets\n",
> > > __func__);
> >
> > Not now. Modifying the code while de-duplicating would be bad idea.
>
> Too many people think overly granular patches are the
> best and only way to make changes.
> Deduplication and consolidation can happen simultaneously.
Can, but should not at this point. Please take a look at the driver in
question before commenting on trivial printk style.
Feel free to do your favourite cleanup on whole tree, or per-driver
basis. Doing it on per-message basis would be wrong thing to do.
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
