Re: [PATCH 0/8] staging: rtl8723bs: remove warnings in rtw_btcoex.h

[Luka Gejak]

On April 29, 2026 2:06:30 PM GMT+02:00, Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >> This series eliminates all remaining checkpatch warnings in
>> >> >
>> >> >LGTM, so for the patch series:
>> >> >
>> >> >Reviewed-by: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >
>> >> >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