[00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD
mbox series

Message ID 1545555435-24576-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr
Headers show
Series
  • drop useless LIST_HEAD
Related show

Message

Julia Lawall Dec. 23, 2018, 8:56 a.m. UTC
Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.

---

 drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c                                |    5 -----
 drivers/dma/dw/core.c                                 |    1 -
 drivers/dma/pl330.c                                   |    1 -
 drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c                              |    2 --
 drivers/dma/st_fdma.c                                 |    3 ---
 drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c               |    1 -
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c |    5 -----
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c       |    3 ---
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c        |    1 -
 drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c                |    1 -
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c                         |    2 --
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c                         |    2 --
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c                          |    1 -
 drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c                       |    1 -
 drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c              |    2 --
 fs/btrfs/relocation.c                                 |    1 -
 fs/nfs/nfs4client.c                                   |    1 -
 fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c                                 |    1 -
 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c                                      |    1 -
 fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c                                    |    1 -
 20 files changed, 36 deletions(-)

Comments

Tom Psyborg Dec. 23, 2018, 9:49 p.m. UTC | #1
Why do you CC this to so many lists?

On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.
>
> ---
>
>  drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c                                |    5 -----
>  drivers/dma/dw/core.c                                 |    1 -
>  drivers/dma/pl330.c                                   |    1 -
>  drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c                              |    2 --
>  drivers/dma/st_fdma.c                                 |    3 ---
>  drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c               |    1 -
>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c |    5 -----
>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c       |    3 ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c        |    1 -
>  drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c                |    1 -
>  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c                         |    2 --
>  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c                         |    2 --
>  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c                          |    1 -
>  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c                       |    1 -
>  drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c              |    2 --
>  fs/btrfs/relocation.c                                 |    1 -
>  fs/nfs/nfs4client.c                                   |    1 -
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c                                 |    1 -
>  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c                                      |    1 -
>  fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c                                    |    1 -
>  20 files changed, 36 deletions(-)
>
Julia Lawall Dec. 23, 2018, 10:06 p.m. UTC | #2
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018, Tom Psyborg wrote:

> Why do you CC this to so many lists?

Because the different files are in different subsystems.  The cover letter
goes to a list for each file, or to a person if there is no list.  The
patches go to the people and lists associated with the affected files.

julia

>
> On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> > Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.
> >
> > ---
> >
> >  drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c                                |    5 -----
> >  drivers/dma/dw/core.c                                 |    1 -
> >  drivers/dma/pl330.c                                   |    1 -
> >  drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c                              |    2 --
> >  drivers/dma/st_fdma.c                                 |    3 ---
> >  drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c               |    1 -
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c |    5 -----
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c       |    3 ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c        |    1 -
> >  drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c                |    1 -
> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c                         |    2 --
> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c                         |    2 --
> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c                          |    1 -
> >  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c                       |    1 -
> >  drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c              |    2 --
> >  fs/btrfs/relocation.c                                 |    1 -
> >  fs/nfs/nfs4client.c                                   |    1 -
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c                                 |    1 -
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c                                      |    1 -
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c                                    |    1 -
> >  20 files changed, 36 deletions(-)
> >
>
Tom Psyborg Dec. 25, 2018, 10:12 p.m. UTC | #3
there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
more than enough

On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2018, Tom Psyborg wrote:
>
>> Why do you CC this to so many lists?
>
> Because the different files are in different subsystems.  The cover letter
> goes to a list for each file, or to a person if there is no list.  The
> patches go to the people and lists associated with the affected files.
>
> julia
>
>>
>> On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>> > Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> >  drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c                                |    5 -----
>> >  drivers/dma/dw/core.c                                 |    1 -
>> >  drivers/dma/pl330.c                                   |    1 -
>> >  drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c                              |    2 --
>> >  drivers/dma/st_fdma.c                                 |    3 ---
>> >  drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c               |    1 -
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c |    5 -----
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c       |    3 ---
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c        |    1 -
>> >  drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c                |    1 -
>> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c                         |    2 --
>> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c                         |    2 --
>> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c                          |    1 -
>> >  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c                       |    1 -
>> >  drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c              |    2 --
>> >  fs/btrfs/relocation.c                                 |    1 -
>> >  fs/nfs/nfs4client.c                                   |    1 -
>> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c                                 |    1 -
>> >  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c                                      |    1 -
>> >  fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c                                    |    1 -
>> >  20 files changed, 36 deletions(-)
>> >
>>
>
Dan Carpenter Dec. 27, 2018, 1:40 p.m. UTC | #4
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote:
> there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
> more than enough
> 

I don't know who you were discussing this with...

You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists.  That much is a
clear rule.

For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one.  I was in
a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the
patches".  It depends on the context, of course.  If the patches are
dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything.

If we really have other clear rules, then it should be encoded into
get_maintainer.pl so that it's automatic.

My other question is why do the linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
people feel like they need to be CC'd about every driver???  I always
remove them from the CC list unless it's an arch/arm issue.

regards,
dan carpenter

PS:  Please, no more top posting.
Darrick J. Wong Dec. 29, 2018, 5:25 a.m. UTC | #5
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:40:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote:
> > there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
> > more than enough
> > 
> 
> I don't know who you were discussing this with...
> 
> You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists.  That much is a
> clear rule.
> 
> For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one.  I was in
> a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the
> patches".  It depends on the context, of course.  If the patches are
> dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything.

Agreed.  Ms. Lawall, sending "Cover letter + all relevant XFS patches"
(as you did) was exactly the right thing for us xfs types. :)

For that matter, we prefer to receive through linux-xfs more patches
than necessary (one can send the entire series if one is unsure) than to
go wanting for more context.

--D

> If we really have other clear rules, then it should be encoded into
> get_maintainer.pl so that it's automatic.
> 
> My other question is why do the linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> people feel like they need to be CC'd about every driver???  I always
> remove them from the CC list unless it's an arch/arm issue.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
> PS:  Please, no more top posting.
>
Julia Lawall Dec. 29, 2018, 6:19 a.m. UTC | #6
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:40:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote:
> > > there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
> > > more than enough
> > >
> >
> > I don't know who you were discussing this with...
> >
> > You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists.  That much is a
> > clear rule.
> >
> > For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one.  I was in
> > a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the
> > patches".  It depends on the context, of course.  If the patches are
> > dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything.
>
> Agreed.  Ms. Lawall, sending "Cover letter + all relevant XFS patches"
> (as you did) was exactly the right thing for us xfs types. :)
>
> For that matter, we prefer to receive through linux-xfs more patches
> than necessary (one can send the entire series if one is unsure) than to
> go wanting for more context.

Thanks for the confirmation.  I was planning to ignore the 4-5 advice,
because there is no way in this case to make a meaningful 4-5 list
suggestion - it's either all or nothing.  But 20 patches at once is
perhaps a lot as well.  In this case, I just wanted to get rid of the
whole issue at once.

julia