Re: [PATCH net-next] wifi: ath11k: Use list_count_nodes()

[Christophe JAILLET]

Le 27/04/2023 à 06:35, Kalle Valo a écrit :
> Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet-39ZsbGIQGT5GWvitb5QawA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_vdevs() and ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_bcn() really
> > look the same as list_count_nodes(), so use the latter instead of hand
> > writing it.
> >
> > The first ones use list_for_each_entry() and the other list_for_each(), but
> > they both count the number of nodes in the list.
> >
> > While at it, also remove to prototypes of non-existent functions.
> > Based on the names and prototypes, it is likely that they should be
> > equivalent to list_count_nodes().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet-39ZsbGIQGT5GWvitb5QawA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Un-tested
>
> I'll run sanity tests on ath11k patches. I'll also add "Compile tested
> only" to the commit log.
>
> Oh, and ath11k patches go to ath tree, not net-next.
Hi,

[adding Joe Perches]

maybe checkpatch could be instrumented for that?

Something that would print a warning if the MAINTAINERS file has a git 
repo in T: or if F: states something related to 'net'.


WARNING: Your patch is against the xxx.git repo but the subject of the 
mail does not reflect it. Should [PATCH xxx] be used instead?
Also make sure that it applies cleanly on xxx.git to ease merge process.

WARNING: Your patch is related to 'net'. Such patches should state 
[PATCH net] when related to bug fix, or [PATCH net-next] otherwise.

Eventually, something if net-next is closed?


What do you think?
Would it be possible? Would it help?

CJ