| Message ID | 941484caae24b89d20524b1a5661dd1fd7025492.1682542084.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net-next] wifi: ath11k: Use list_count_nodes() | expand |
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> 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@wanadoo.fr> > --- > 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.
Le 27/04/2023 à 06:35, Kalle Valo a écrit : > Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet-39ZsbGIQGT5GWvitb5QawA@public.gmane.org> 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@public.gmane.org> >> --- >> 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
On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 07:35 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> 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@wanadoo.fr> > > --- > > 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. Just for awareness, there are 2 additional patches apparently targeting net-next but being instead for the WiFi tree: https://lore.kernel.org/all/e77ed7f719787cb8836a93b6a6972f4147e40bc6.1682537509.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr/ https://lore.kernel.org/all/e6ec525c0c5057e97e33a63f8a4aa482e5c2da7f.1682541872.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr/ Cheers, Paolo
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> writes: > On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 07:35 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> 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@wanadoo.fr> >> > --- >> > 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. > > Just for awareness, there are 2 additional patches apparently targeting > net-next but being instead for the WiFi tree: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/e77ed7f719787cb8836a93b6a6972f4147e40bc6.1682537509.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr/ > https://lore.kernel.org/all/e6ec525c0c5057e97e33a63f8a4aa482e5c2da7f.1682541872.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr/ Thanks, these are on our wireless patchwork so you can drop them on your end: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/e6ec525c0c5057e97e33a63f8a4aa482e5c2da7f.1682541872.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/e77ed7f719787cb8836a93b6a6972f4147e40bc6.1682537509.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr/
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:48:59PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > 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@wanadoo.fr> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> 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@wanadoo.fr> > --- > Un-tested BTW I prefer to have "Compile tested only" in the commit log to make it clear that it's not tested on a real device. So I added that sentence to both this and ath10k patch.
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > 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(). > > Compile tested only. > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> > Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@quicinc.com> Patch applied to ath-next branch of ath.git, thanks. 91dce4091433 wifi: ath11k: Use list_count_nodes()
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.c index d0b59bc2905a..a55b5fe37ecf 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.c @@ -6548,28 +6548,6 @@ int ath11k_wmi_pull_fw_stats(struct ath11k_base *ab, struct sk_buff *skb, &parse); } -size_t ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_vdevs(struct list_head *head) -{ - struct ath11k_fw_stats_vdev *i; - size_t num = 0; - - list_for_each_entry(i, head, list) - ++num; - - return num; -} - -static size_t ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_bcn(struct list_head *head) -{ - struct ath11k_fw_stats_bcn *i; - size_t num = 0; - - list_for_each_entry(i, head, list) - ++num; - - return num; -} - static void ath11k_wmi_fw_pdev_base_stats_fill(const struct ath11k_fw_stats_pdev *pdev, char *buf, u32 *length) @@ -6880,7 +6858,7 @@ void ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_fill(struct ath11k *ar, } if (stats_id == WMI_REQUEST_BCN_STAT) { - num_bcn = ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_bcn(&fw_stats->bcn); + num_bcn = list_count_nodes(&fw_stats->bcn); len += scnprintf(buf + len, buf_len - len, "\n"); len += scnprintf(buf + len, buf_len - len, "%30s (%zu)\n", diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h index 92fddb77669c..91bc3e648ce1 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h @@ -6372,9 +6372,6 @@ int ath11k_wmi_send_pdev_set_regdomain(struct ath11k *ar, struct pdev_set_regdomain_params *param); int ath11k_wmi_pull_fw_stats(struct ath11k_base *ab, struct sk_buff *skb, struct ath11k_fw_stats *stats); -size_t ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_peers(struct list_head *head); -size_t ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_peers_extd(struct list_head *head); -size_t ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_num_vdevs(struct list_head *head); void ath11k_wmi_fw_stats_fill(struct ath11k *ar, struct ath11k_fw_stats *fw_stats, u32 stats_id, char *buf);
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@wanadoo.fr> --- Un-tested --- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.c | 24 +----------------------- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h | 3 --- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 26 deletions(-)