Hey, > 1. It's normal for patch-sets, to have a cover letter. > That provides a handy place for high level comments, > perhaps ironically, such as this one.
I'll add it in a second iteration. > 2. Please provide some text in the patch description. > I know these changes are trivial. But we'd like to have something there. > E.g. > > Remove unnecessary cast of constants to u16, > allowing the C type system to do it's thing. > > No behavioural change intended. > Compile tested only. Wilco. > 4. Please make sure the patchset applies cleanly to it's target tree. > It seems that in it's current form the patchset doesn't > apply to iwl-next or net-next. Just to be sure, iwl-next is this one: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tnguy/linux.git refs/heads/for-next ? > 5. It's up to you. But in general there is no need > to CC [email protected] on Networking patches I've just followed get_maintainers.pl output to the letter. > As for this patch itself, it looks good to me. > But I think you missed two. Rather: I have not touched subtraction on purpose. But checking the compiler output - yes, it can be dropped as well. I'll prepare an updated patch set with subtraction changes across Intel drivers included. -- Best regards, Jacek Kowalski
