Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: remove ath10k_vif_to_arvif()

[Ben Greear]

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