[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5A216DB0-DB3A-4619-9546-A687549DB543@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:09:07 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
CC: Aleksandr Nogikh <a.nogikh@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kuba@...nel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Aleksandr Nogikh <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 11 October 2020 12:37:29 CEST, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
>I initially hesitated to do that, as it would multiply the number of
>kcov callbacks. But perhaps you're right and a clean API look
>outweighs the rest. I will do this in v3.
Yeah, OK, dunno. You can always make it an inline calling the "full" API so after compiling it's equivalent. But if course that still has the two APIs. It just seemed to the common case wouldn't worry really (have to) about these things, especially if you plan on changing it again later.
johannes
--
Sent from my phone.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists