Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: remove ath10k_vif_to_arvif() | From | Ben Greear <> | Date | Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:43:43 -0800 |
| |
On 02/09/2017 11:03 PM, Valo, Kalle wrote: > Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> writes: > >> On 02/07/2017 01:14 AM, Valo, Kalle wrote: >>> Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> writes: >>> >>>> Removing this method makes the diff to FreeBSD larger, as "vif" in >>>> FreeBSD is a different pointer. >>>> >>>> (Yes, I have ath10k on freebsd working and I'd like to find a way to >>>> reduce the diff moving forward.) >>> >>> I don't like this "(void *) vif->drv_priv" style that much either but >>> apparently it's commonly used in Linux wireless code and already parts >>> of ath10k. So this patch just unifies the coding style. >> >> Surely the code compiles to the same thing, so why add a patch that >> makes it more difficult for Adrian and makes the code no easier to read >> for the rest of us? > > Because that's the coding style used already in Linux. It's great to see > that parts of ath10k can be used also in other systems but in principle > I'm not very fond of the idea starting to reject valid upstream patches > because of driver forks.
There are lots of people trying to maintain out-of-tree or backported patches to ath10k, and every time there is a meaningless style change, that just makes us waste more time on useless work instead of having time to work on more important matters.
Thanks, Ben
> I think backports project is doing it right, it's not limiting upstream > development in any way and handles all the API changes internally. Maybe > FreeBSD could do something similar? >
-- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
| |