[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1403258268.2295.66.camel@jtkirshe-mobl>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:57:48 -0700
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net,
Anjali Singhai Jain <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 01/13] i40e/i40evf: i40e_register.h update
On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 11:07 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> writes:
>
> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c | 30 +-
> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_register.h | 5011
> ++++++++-------------
> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_type.h | 3 +
> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40evf/i40e_register.h | 5011
> ++++++++-------------
> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40evf/i40e_type.h | 3 +
> > 5 files changed, 3728 insertions(+), 6330 deletions(-)
>
> Not really a comment on this patch, but the diffstat above made me
> suspect that you have lots of duplicates here... Does it *really*
> make
> sense to maintain syncronized copies of these rather large header
> files,
> just because a total of 3 lines are different (not counting the
> unneccessary header diff and the assumed unwanted whitespace diff)?
We have been discussing this internally to come up with a solution and
one of the big reasons why we have not made the common code into a
shared resource for both drivers has been due to regression issues. But
we are currently actively looking into what can be done to minimize this
type of duplication.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists