Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:50:12 +0100 | | From | David Vrabel <> | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] UWB, WUSB, and WLP subsystems for 2.6.28 |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:08:28 +0100 David Vrabel <david.vrabel@csr.com> wrote: >> Please pull the new UWB, WUSB and WLP subsystems from >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dvrabel/uwb.git for-upstream > > didn't happen?
Not yet.
> What is the review status of this work? I don't remember seeing it on any > of the lists where I lurk - perhaps a full resend will help things along.
Several iterations were posted and reviewed on the linux-usb mailing list.
> <quick scan> > > Code looks reasonable. > > It has lots of comments which start with /**, which is the > this-is-kerneldoc token. Only they're not kerneldoc comments. These > should all be converted to kerneldoc, or replace the /** with /*.
I've been fixing these up when I've been updating the documentation.
> uwb_beca_purge() should use time_after() or time_before().
Ok.
> In uwb_bce_print_IEs(), the cast of > uwb_rc_evt_beacon_WUSB_0100.BeaconInfo[] into a struct uwb_rc_evt_beacon* > looks really worrisome from an alignment POV. Can it result in misaligned > accesses on architectures which don't like that? (ia64, alpha, ...)
In that function *be is of type struct uwb_rc_evt_beacon which is 48 octets long. struct uwb_beacon_frame only contains u8's so there are no alignment issues.
> Code does kzalloc(a * b, ..) in some places. kcalloc() is preferred, so > readers don't have to worry whether the code is vulnerable to > multiplicative overflows.
Ok.
> The code has a random mixture of > zero-lines-between-end-of-locals-and-start-of-code and > one-line-between-end-of-locals-and-start-of-code (and two line). The > latter is usually preferred.
I agree here. I've been fixing these up when had to make other changes to the affected functions.
> The person who misnamed DEFINE_BITMAP as DECLARE_BITMAP instead gets a > wedgie.
Not sure you mean here?
> It seems strange that uwb_drp_ie_update(UWB_RSV_STATE_NONE) will free > rsv->drp_ie then reallocate it.
If rsv->state == UWB_RSV_STATE_NONE the function returns in the switch before the call to uwb_drp_ie_alloc().
> printk_ratelimit() is a bit silly because it shares state with other > unrelated subsystems which might be using it. Direct use of __ratelimit() > would be better.
Ok.
> All minor stuff - I didn't spend long looking...
I can fix up some of the issues in the next couple of days (use time_after() and kcalloc()). Could these subsystems then be merged?
The printk_ratelimit() will take a bit longer.
David -- David Vrabel, Senior Software Engineer, Drivers CSR, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Tel: +44 (0)1223 692562 Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WZ http://www.csr.com/
|  |