drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c | 2 +- drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_btcoex.c | 10 +++++----- drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c | 4 ++-- drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 2 +- drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c | 12 ++++++------ drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/rtw_btcoex.h | 11 +++++------ drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/sdio_intf.c | 2 +- 7 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
This series eliminates all remaining checkpatch warnings in rtw_btcoex.h. Such as CamelCase, redundant blank lines and unnamed function definition arguments. Linus Probert (8): staging: rtl8723bs: remove blank line in rtw_btcoex.h staging: rtl8723bs: add function definition arg names to rtw_btcoex.h staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_MediaStatusNotify() staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_media_status_notify definition arg staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_btcoex_HaltNotify() -> rtw_btcoex_halt_notify() staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_RejectApAggregatedPacket() staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_btcoex_LPS_Enter() -> rtw_btcoex_lps_enter() staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_LPS_Leave to rtw_btcoex_lps_leave drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c | 2 +- drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_btcoex.c | 10 +++++----- drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c | 4 ++-- drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 2 +- drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c | 12 ++++++------ drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/rtw_btcoex.h | 11 +++++------ drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/sdio_intf.c | 2 +- 7 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) -- 2.54.0
> This series eliminates all remaining checkpatch warnings in > rtw_btcoex.h. Such as CamelCase, redundant blank lines and unnamed > function definition arguments. > > Linus Probert (8): > staging: rtl8723bs: remove blank line in rtw_btcoex.h > staging: rtl8723bs: add function definition arg names to rtw_btcoex.h > staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_MediaStatusNotify() > staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_media_status_notify definition arg > staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_btcoex_HaltNotify() -> rtw_btcoex_halt_notify() > staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_RejectApAggregatedPacket() > staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_btcoex_LPS_Enter() -> rtw_btcoex_lps_enter() > staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_LPS_Leave to rtw_btcoex_lps_leave > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c | 2 +- > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_btcoex.c | 10 +++++----- > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 2 +- > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c | 12 ++++++------ > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/rtw_btcoex.h | 11 +++++------ > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/sdio_intf.c | 2 +- > 7 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.54.0 > LGTM, so for the patch series: Reviewed-by: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> Best regards, Luka Gejak
On April 29, 2026 12:18:12 PM GMT+02:00, Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> wrote: >> This series eliminates all remaining checkpatch warnings in >> rtw_btcoex.h. Such as CamelCase, redundant blank lines and unnamed >> function definition arguments. >> >> Linus Probert (8): >> staging: rtl8723bs: remove blank line in rtw_btcoex.h >> staging: rtl8723bs: add function definition arg names to rtw_btcoex.h >> staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_MediaStatusNotify() >> staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_media_status_notify definition arg >> staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_btcoex_HaltNotify() -> rtw_btcoex_halt_notify() >> staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_RejectApAggregatedPacket() >> staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_btcoex_LPS_Enter() -> rtw_btcoex_lps_enter() >> staging: rtl8723bs: rename rtw_btcoex_LPS_Leave to rtw_btcoex_lps_leave >> >> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c | 2 +- >> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_btcoex.c | 10 +++++----- >> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 2 +- >> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c | 12 ++++++------ >> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/rtw_btcoex.h | 11 +++++------ >> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/sdio_intf.c | 2 +- >> 7 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.54.0 >> > >LGTM, so for the patch series: > >Reviewed-by: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> > >Best regards, >Luka Gejak One note: For the future cleanup series, feel free to squash identical logical changes into a single patch to keep the commit history concise. It's up to Greg if he wants v2 but logic is sound as is. Best regards, Luka Gejak
On 2026-04-29 12:24:53+02:00, Luka Gejak wrote: > On April 29, 2026 12:18:12 PM GMT+02:00, Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> wrote: > > >> This series eliminates all remaining checkpatch warnings in > > > >LGTM, so for the patch series: > > > >Reviewed-by: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> > > > >Best regards, > >Luka Gejak > > One note: > For the future cleanup series, feel free to squash identical logical > changes into a single patch to keep the commit history concise. It's > up to Greg if he wants v2 but logic is sound as is. > Best regards, > Luka Gejak I will make a note of that. In this case what do you consider an identical logical change? What would you suggest that I squash? Br, Linus
On April 29, 2026 12:46:27 PM GMT+02:00, Linus Probert <linus.probert@gmail.com> wrote: >On 2026-04-29 12:24:53+02:00, Luka Gejak wrote: >> On April 29, 2026 12:18:12 PM GMT+02:00, Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> wrote: >> >> >> This series eliminates all remaining checkpatch warnings in >> > >> >LGTM, so for the patch series: >> > >> >Reviewed-by: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> >> > >> >Best regards, >> >Luka Gejak >> >> One note: >> For the future cleanup series, feel free to squash identical logical >> changes into a single patch to keep the commit history concise. It's >> up to Greg if he wants v2 but logic is sound as is. >> Best regards, >> Luka Gejak > >I will make a note of that. In this case what do you consider an >identical logical change? What would you suggest that I squash? > >Br, >Linus > A logical change refers to the type of cleanup being done. In your series, patches 3-8 all do the exact same thing: fix CamelCase names for functions defined in rtw_btcoex.h. Instead of 6 separate commits, those could be squashed into a single patch. But as I already said it is up to Greg if he wants v2 or if he wants to keep v1 as is. Either way code itself is good. Best regards, Luka Gejak
On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 01:34:41PM +0200, Luka Gejak wrote: > On April 29, 2026 12:46:27 PM GMT+02:00, Linus Probert <linus.probert@gmail.com> wrote: > >On 2026-04-29 12:24:53+02:00, Luka Gejak wrote: > >> On April 29, 2026 12:18:12 PM GMT+02:00, Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> wrote: > >> > >> >> This series eliminates all remaining checkpatch warnings in > >> > > >> >LGTM, so for the patch series: > >> > > >> >Reviewed-by: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> > >> > > >> >Best regards, > >> >Luka Gejak > >> > >> One note: > >> For the future cleanup series, feel free to squash identical logical > >> changes into a single patch to keep the commit history concise. It's > >> up to Greg if he wants v2 but logic is sound as is. > >> Best regards, > >> Luka Gejak > > > >I will make a note of that. In this case what do you consider an > >identical logical change? What would you suggest that I squash? > > > >Br, > >Linus > > > > A logical change refers to the type of cleanup being done. In your > series, patches 3-8 all do the exact same thing: fix CamelCase names > for functions defined in rtw_btcoex.h. Instead of 6 separate commits, > those could be squashed into a single patch. But as I already said it > is up to Greg if he wants v2 or if he wants to keep v1 as is. Either > way code itself is good. Greg has said in the past he prefers them all as separate changes the way this patchset does it. He recently asked somone to split up a typedef patch into one typedef per patch. regards, dan carpenter
On April 29, 2026 2:06:30 PM GMT+02:00, Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 01:34:41PM +0200, Luka Gejak wrote: >> On April 29, 2026 12:46:27 PM GMT+02:00, Linus Probert <linus.probert@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On 2026-04-29 12:24:53+02:00, Luka Gejak wrote: >> >> On April 29, 2026 12:18:12 PM GMT+02:00, Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> This series eliminates all remaining checkpatch warnings in >> >> > >> >> >LGTM, so for the patch series: >> >> > >> >> >Reviewed-by: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> >> >> > >> >> >Best regards, >> >> >Luka Gejak >> >> >> >> One note: >> >> For the future cleanup series, feel free to squash identical logical >> >> changes into a single patch to keep the commit history concise. It's >> >> up to Greg if he wants v2 but logic is sound as is. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Luka Gejak >> > >> >I will make a note of that. In this case what do you consider an >> >identical logical change? What would you suggest that I squash? >> > >> >Br, >> >Linus >> > >> >> A logical change refers to the type of cleanup being done. In your >> series, patches 3-8 all do the exact same thing: fix CamelCase names >> for functions defined in rtw_btcoex.h. Instead of 6 separate commits, >> those could be squashed into a single patch. But as I already said it >> is up to Greg if he wants v2 or if he wants to keep v1 as is. Either >> way code itself is good. > >Greg has said in the past he prefers them all as separate changes the >way this patchset does it. He recently asked somone to split up a >typedef patch into one typedef per patch. > >regards, >dan carpenter > Thanks for that information Dan, I wasn't awear of that. Best regards, Luka Gejak
On 2026-04-29 14:18:55+02:00, Luka Gejak wrote: > On April 29, 2026 2:06:30 PM GMT+02:00, Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 01:34:41PM +0200, Luka Gejak wrote: > > > >Greg has said in the past he prefers them all as separate changes the > >way this patchset does it. He recently asked somone to split up a > >typedef patch into one typedef per patch. > > > >regards, > >dan carpenter > > Thanks for that information Dan, I wasn't awear of that. > Best regards, > Luka Gejak Thanks, then I did understand your suggestion correctly. Just wasn't sure. As Dan stated I've learnt that Greg prefers one commit per function for these cases. Thanks, Linus
On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 02:51:06PM +0200, Linus Probert wrote: > On 2026-04-29 14:18:55+02:00, Luka Gejak wrote: > > On April 29, 2026 2:06:30 PM GMT+02:00, Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 01:34:41PM +0200, Luka Gejak wrote: > > > > > >Greg has said in the past he prefers them all as separate changes the > > >way this patchset does it. He recently asked somone to split up a > > >typedef patch into one typedef per patch. > > > > > >regards, > > >dan carpenter > > > > Thanks for that information Dan, I wasn't awear of that. > > Best regards, > > Luka Gejak > > Thanks, then I did understand your suggestion correctly. Just wasn't > sure. As Dan stated I've learnt that Greg prefers one commit per function > for these cases. Yes, this is great, thanks! greg k-h
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.