On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:17:53PM -0700, Franky Lin wrote:
> On 09/26/2011 11:26 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >On 09/26/2011 11:37 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >>On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 14:34 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >>>On 09/24/2011 12:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 19:08 -0700, Franky Lin wrote:
> >>>>> struct d11rxhdr {
> >>>>> u16 RxFrameSize;
> >>>>> u16 PAD;
> >>>>>+ union {
> >>>>>+ struct d11rxhdr_le rxh_le;
> >>>>>+ struct d11rxhdr rxh_cpu;
> >>>>>+ };
> >>>>This seems a little strange. Why would it be both in LE and CPU byte
> >>>>order?
> >>>Indeed. When we receive it from the device it is in LE and we convert it
> >>>to CPU order for further processing using rxh_cpu.
> >>That seems a confusing and error-prone -- you'll have to remember
> >>whether you're before or after conversion. Would it be possible to have
> >>two versions of the outer structure and change the pointer type at that
> >>point?
> >>
> >>johannes
> >
> >For me knowing the driver design (a little ;-) it is not difficult to
> >remember. Your feedback has valid arguments so I will reconsider. Franky
> >is looking whether dropping it will affect the other patches submitted
> >to Greg.
> >
> >Gr. AvS
>
> Dropping this one will affect some following patches in the series.
> Since it's not a bug, shall we keep this one and change it as
> Johannes suggested in future commit?
How about just resend the whole series, that way I don't accidentally
apply it, or the other one you wanted dropped?
I've dropped this whole series from my to-apply queue now.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
