netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: remove ath10k_vif_to

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5fcaaf0e-5f35-fac8-c448-a29aeef9bf0f@candelatech.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:43:43 -0800
From:   Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:     "Valo, Kalle" <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
Cc:     Adrian Chadd <adrian@...ebsd.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Amadeusz Sławiński 
        <amadeusz.slawinski@...to.com>,
        "ath10k@...ts.infradead.org" <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: remove ath10k_vif_to_arvif()

On 02/09/2017 11:03 PM, Valo, Kalle wrote:
> Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> writes:
>
>> On 02/07/2017 01:14 AM, Valo, Kalle wrote:
>>> Adrian Chadd <adrian@...ebsd.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@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com