Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-10-01 Thread David Howells
Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Yes, good idea. We could probably share the part of the two functions that > sets the contents of the msg and pkt variables by moving it into a third > function, but I'm not sure if that actually improves readability or just > reduces the number of lines.

Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-10-01 Thread David Howells
Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Yes, good idea. We could probably share the part of the two functions that > sets the contents of the msg and pkt variables by moving it into a third > function, but I'm not sure if that actually improves readability or just > reduces the number of lines. And the

Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-09-30 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Saturday 01 October 2016, David Howells wrote: > commit 35510eefc29e2757c1ac46218cded2e505093fc2 > Author: David Howells > Date: Sat Oct 1 00:35:15 2016 +0100 > > rxrpc: Split rxrpc_send_call_packet() > > Split rxrpc_send_data_packet() to separate ACK

Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-09-30 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Saturday 01 October 2016, David Howells wrote: > commit 35510eefc29e2757c1ac46218cded2e505093fc2 > Author: David Howells > Date: Sat Oct 1 00:35:15 2016 +0100 > > rxrpc: Split rxrpc_send_call_packet() > > Split rxrpc_send_data_packet() to separate ACK generation (which is more

Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-09-30 Thread David Howells
Something like the attached. David --- commit 35510eefc29e2757c1ac46218cded2e505093fc2 Author: David Howells Date: Sat Oct 1 00:35:15 2016 +0100 rxrpc: Split rxrpc_send_call_packet() Split rxrpc_send_data_packet() to separate ACK generation (which is more

Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-09-30 Thread David Howells
Something like the attached. David --- commit 35510eefc29e2757c1ac46218cded2e505093fc2 Author: David Howells Date: Sat Oct 1 00:35:15 2016 +0100 rxrpc: Split rxrpc_send_call_packet() Split rxrpc_send_data_packet() to separate ACK generation (which is more complicated) from

Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-09-30 Thread David Howells
Arnd Bergmann wrote: > A number of reworks went into rxrpc_send_call_packet() recently, which > introduced another warning when built with -Wmaybe-uninitialized: > > In file included from ../net/rxrpc/output.c:20:0: > net/rxrpc/output.c: In function 'rxrpc_send_call_packet': >

Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-09-30 Thread David Howells
Arnd Bergmann wrote: > A number of reworks went into rxrpc_send_call_packet() recently, which > introduced another warning when built with -Wmaybe-uninitialized: > > In file included from ../net/rxrpc/output.c:20:0: > net/rxrpc/output.c: In function 'rxrpc_send_call_packet': >

[PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-09-30 Thread Arnd Bergmann
A number of reworks went into rxrpc_send_call_packet() recently, which introduced another warning when built with -Wmaybe-uninitialized: In file included from ../net/rxrpc/output.c:20:0: net/rxrpc/output.c: In function 'rxrpc_send_call_packet': net/rxrpc/ar-internal.h:1187:27: error: 'top' may be

[PATCH] rxrpc: split up rxrpc_send_call_packet()

2016-09-30 Thread Arnd Bergmann
A number of reworks went into rxrpc_send_call_packet() recently, which introduced another warning when built with -Wmaybe-uninitialized: In file included from ../net/rxrpc/output.c:20:0: net/rxrpc/output.c: In function 'rxrpc_send_call_packet': net/rxrpc/ar-internal.h:1187:27: error: 'top' may be