[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FA2265D.6040000@linux-pingi.de>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:31:57 +0200
From: Karsten Keil <kkeil@...ux-pingi.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Sometimes the ISDN chip only controls the D-channel
Hello David,
Am 01.05.2012 19:30, schrieb David Miller:
> From: Karsten Keil <kkeil@...ux-pingi.de>
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:43:19 +0200
>
>> The B-channels are only accessed via the PCM backplane.
>> Add infrastruckture for this special mode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Karsten Keil <kkeil@...ux-pingi.de>
>
> I dread reviewing these ISDN patch sets because they are so
> full of problems, and it's so damn obvious how little care is
> put into preparing them.
>
> What I see is that you put the minimum amount of work necessary
> into splitting up your huge ISDN patch set submission into more
> managable pieces, and as a result you are introducing problems.
>
I did put the additional PCM infrastructure in this series, because
the approval test was done with it in place.
I did plan the update of the low level drivers in a separate patchset
from the beginning.
What do you prefer, adding the driver part now, as additional patch, or
removing this additional infrastruckture part and submit it in a later
series ?
>> diff --git a/drivers/isdn/mISDN/socket.c b/drivers/isdn/mISDN/socket.c
>> index abe2d69..502bcf1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/isdn/mISDN/socket.c
>> +++ b/drivers/isdn/mISDN/socket.c
>> @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ data_sock_release(struct socket *sock)
>> break;
>> case ISDN_P_LAPD_TE:
>> case ISDN_P_LAPD_NT:
>> + case ISDN_P_B_PCM:
>> case ISDN_P_B_RAW:
>> case ISDN_P_B_HDLC:
>> case ISDN_P_B_X75SLP:
>
> Ok, that's fine.
>
>> @@ -148,6 +149,8 @@ struct bchannel {
>> u_int state;
>> void *hw;
>> int slot; /* multiport card channel slot */
>> + int pcm_tx; /* PCM tx slot nr */
>> + int pcm_rx; /* PCM rx slot nr */
>> struct timer_list timer;
>> /* receive data */
>> struct sk_buff *rx_skb;
>
> But what the hell is this? These structure members are unused by
> this patch, and in fact no patch in your entire series uses them.
>
>> @@ -360,8 +360,8 @@ clear_channelmap(u_int nr, u_char *map)
>> #define MISDN_CTRL_LOOP 0x0001
>> #define MISDN_CTRL_CONNECT 0x0002
>> #define MISDN_CTRL_DISCONNECT 0x0004
>> -#define MISDN_CTRL_PCMCONNECT 0x0010
>> -#define MISDN_CTRL_PCMDISCONNECT 0x0020
>> +#define MISDN_CTRL_GET_PCM_SLOTS 0x0010
>> +#define MISDN_CTRL_SET_PCM_SLOTS 0x0020
>> #define MISDN_CTRL_SETPEER 0x0040
>> #define MISDN_CTRL_UNSETPEER 0x0080
>> #define MISDN_CTRL_RX_OFF 0x0100
>
> Another completely unrelated change, nothing in this patch uses
> these new defines.
>
>> @@ -381,6 +381,10 @@ clear_channelmap(u_int nr, u_char *map)
>> #define MISDN_CTRL_HFC_WD_INIT 0x4009
>> #define MISDN_CTRL_HFC_WD_RESET 0x400A
>>
>> +/* special PCM slot numbers */
>> +#define MISDN_PCM_SLOT_DISABLE -1 /* PCM disabled */
>> +#define MISDN_PCM_SLOT_IGNORE -2 /* PCM setting will be not changed */
>> +
>> /* socket options */
>> #define MISDN_TIME_STAMP 0x0001
>>
>
> Same thing.
>
>> @@ -389,6 +393,7 @@ struct mISDN_ctrl_req {
>> int channel;
>> int p1;
>> int p2;
>> + int p3;
>> };
>>
>> /* muxer options */
>
> And again, same problem.
>
> You really need to get your act in gear and prepare your patches
> properly, so that they don't have unrelated changes in them.
>
> This is not amateur hour.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists