[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877e2r4g71.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:19:30 +0200
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
ath11k@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath11k: Remove unnecessary enum scan_priority
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:32 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:23 AM Nathan Chancellor
>> > <natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> wmi_scan_priority and scan_priority have the same values but the wmi one
>> >> has WMI prefixed to the names. Since that enum is already being used,
>> >> get rid of scan_priority and switch its one use to wmi_scan_priority to
>> >> fix this warning.
>> >>
>> > Also, I don't know if the more concisely named enum is preferable?
>>
>> I didn't get this comment.
>
> Given two enums with the same values:
> enum scan_priority
> enum wmi_scan_priority
> wouldn't you prefer to type wmi_ a few times less? Doesn't really
> matter, but that was the point I was making.
Ah, now I got it :) This enum is part of firmware interface (WMI) so
yes, I prefer to use the wmi_ prefix to make that obvious.
--
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
Powered by blists - more mailing lists