[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d9e536d6-1b66-52d5-50a8-0c011b23e018@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 20:19:05 +0300
From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] staging: r8188eu: remove _io_ops structure
On 9/6/21 16:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 12:00:46AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>> -void _rtw_read_mem(struct adapter *adapter, u32 addr, u32 cnt, u8 *pmem)
>> -{
>> - void (*_read_mem)(struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl, u32 addr, u32 cnt, u8 *pmem);
>> - struct io_priv *pio_priv = &adapter->iopriv;
>> - struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl = &pio_priv->intf;
>> -
>> -
>> - if (adapter->bDriverStopped || adapter->bSurpriseRemoved)
>> - return;
>> - _read_mem = pintfhdl->io_ops._read_mem;
>> - _read_mem(pintfhdl, addr, cnt, pmem);
>> -
>> -}
>
> This is odd, in that it resolves down to usb_read_mem which does
> nothing at all.
>
> And then no one calls this at all either?
>
> How about removing the io ops that are not used at all first, one at a
> time, making it obvious what is happening, and then convert the ones
> that are used one at a time, and when all is done, then removing the
> structure?
>
Just have started to cut one big patch to smaller ones and does it make
sense to group changes like: one for usb_read*, one for usb_write* and
one for usb_port*? I think, it would be cleaner and series won't be too big.
What do you think?
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists