You had a typo in the subject nic -> nci. But really nfc: would be
enough.
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:51:57 +0800 Alex Shi wrote:
> We don't use the parameter result actually, so better to remove it and
> skip a gcc warning for unused variable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex....@linux.alibaba.com>
Let's CC the nfc list.
nfc folks any reason the list is not mentioned under NFC SUBSYSTEM?
> diff --git a/net/nfc/nci/hci.c b/net/nfc/nci/hci.c
> index c18e76d6d8ba..6b275a387a92 100644
> --- a/net/nfc/nci/hci.c
> +++ b/net/nfc/nci/hci.c
> @@ -363,16 +363,13 @@ static void nci_hci_cmd_received(struct nci_dev *ndev,
> u8 pipe,
> }
>
> static void nci_hci_resp_received(struct nci_dev *ndev, u8 pipe,
> - u8 result, struct sk_buff *skb)
> + struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> struct nci_conn_info *conn_info;
> - u8 status = result;
>
> conn_info = ndev->hci_dev->conn_info;
> - if (!conn_info) {
> - status = NCI_STATUS_REJECTED;
> + if (!conn_info)
> goto exit;
> - }
>
> conn_info->rx_skb = skb;
>
LGTM based on the fact that commit d8cd37ed2fc8 ("NFC: nci: Fix improper
management of HCI return code") started seemingly intentionally ignoring
the status.
Applied, thanks!
