Thread (85 messages) flat view 85 messages, 21 authors, 2022-03-07

Re: [PATCH 1/6] drivers: usb: remove usage of list iterator past the loop body

From: Dan Carpenter <hidden>
Date: 2022-02-28 13:20:39
Also in: alsa-devel, amd-gfx, dmaengine, dri-devel, intel-gfx, kvm, linux-arch, linux-aspeed, linux-block, linux-cifs, linux-crypto, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-iio, linux-media, linux-mediatek, linux-pm, linux-rdma, linux-scsi, linux-staging, linux-tegra, linux-usb, linux-wireless, linuxppc-dev, lkml, nouveau

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 01:03:36PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
quoted
quoted
@@ -954,7 +957,6 @@ net2272_dequeue(struct usb_ep *_ep, struct usb_request *_req)
		dev_dbg(ep->dev->dev, "unlink (%s) pio\n", _ep->name);
		net2272_done(ep, req, -ECONNRESET);
	}
-	req = NULL;
Another unrelated change.  These are all good changes but send them as
separate patches.
You are referring to the req = NULL, right?
Yes.
I've changed the use of 'req' in the same function and assumed that I can
just remove the unnecessary statement. But if it's better to do separately
I'll do that.
These are all changes which made me pause during my review to figure out
why they were necessary.  The line between what is a related part of a
patch is a bit vague and some maintainers will ask you to add or subtract
from a patch depending on their individual tastes.  I don't really have
an exact answer, but I felt like this patch needs to be subtracted from.

Especially if there is a whole chunk of the patch which can be removed,
then to me, that obviously should be in a different patch.

regards,
dan carpenter
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help