[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C4BF5679-74E6-4F2E-839B-A95D88699DBF@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 19:13:31 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Aleksandr Nogikh <a.nogikh@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
CC: edumazet@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
elver@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
nogikh@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] [PATCH v2 0/3] [PATCH v2 0/3] net, mac80211, kernel: enable KCOV remote coverage collection for 802.11 frame handling
On 9 October 2020 19:01:59 CEST, Aleksandr Nogikh <a.nogikh@...il.com> wrote:
>This patch series conflicts with another proposed patch
>http://lkml.kernel.org/r/223901affc7bd759b2d6995c2dbfbdd0a29bc88a.1602248029.git.andreyknvl@google.com
>One of these patches needs to be rebased once the other one is merged.
Maybe that other patch shouldn't do things that way though, and add new API (which the existing one could call with some kind of "all contexts" argument) instead, so it's only necessary to specify the context (mask?) where its actually needed (the few places in usb or e whatever)?
Surely that would also look less tedious in the mac80211 code, for example.
And if you ever fix the nesting issue you'd have fewer places to modify again.
johannes
--
Sent from my phone.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists