On 06/01/2013 01:47 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 08:10:52PM +0300, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
This patch fixes identation and alignment in r8192U_core.c.
Also, removes spaces from idents when applicable.
Signed-off-by: Xenia Ragiadakou<burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Please take a look at changes in stage:
@@-2686,35 +2688,35 @@ static void rtl8192_read_eeprom_info(struct net_device *dev)
There are some changes that i don't know where they
came from. They do not alter the code though.
I am referring to the following sub-add pairs:
patch lines 922 and 923
patch lines 925 and 926
patch lines 928 and 945
I am worried about this but I don't understand it. What do those
line numbers mean? Please explain again.
They are the lines in the patch file where I saw the changes when
I was reviewing the patch.
Don't put RFC. It's sort of cowardly. Be fearless!
I do not revert never ever again!
patch 2/2 will have to be redone. so my guess is that 3-5 won't
apply after 2/2 is redone.
Patches 1, 3 and 4 are great. Patch 5 is huge but I don't see a
clear way to break it into smaller patches, so I guess it's fine.
I have scripts to review that kind of patch so it's not a problem.
@@ -236,12 +236,12 @@ static void rtl819x_set_channel_map(u8 channel_plan, struct r8192_priv *priv)
}
-#define rx_hal_is_cck_rate(_pdrvinfo)\
- (_pdrvinfo->RxRate == DESC90_RATE1M ||\
- _pdrvinfo->RxRate == DESC90_RATE2M ||\
- _pdrvinfo->RxRate == DESC90_RATE5_5M ||\
- _pdrvinfo->RxRate == DESC90_RATE11M)&&\
- !_pdrvinfo->RxHT\
+#define rx_hal_is_cck_rate(_pdrvinfo) \
+ (_pdrvinfo->RxRate == DESC90_RATE1M || \
+ _pdrvinfo->RxRate == DESC90_RATE2M || \
+ _pdrvinfo->RxRate == DESC90_RATE5_5M || \
+ _pdrvinfo->RxRate == DESC90_RATE11M)&& \
+ !_pdrvinfo->RxHT \
This macro is disgusting. It should be a function.
bool rx_hal_is_cck_rate(struct rx_drvinfo_819x_usb *pdrvinfo)
{
if (pdrvinfo->RxHT)
return false;
switch (pdrvinfo->RxRate) {
case DESC90_RATE1M:
case DESC90_RATE2M:
case DESC90_RATE5_5M:
case DESC90_RATE11M:
return true;
default:
return false;
}
}
regards,
dan carpenter
To be honest i don't know the comparative advantages
of the two styles (not the visual ones).
(irrelevant)
I have a problem with ifdefed code. I am not sure as far
as which ifdefs should be removed completely.
Even the TODO and debug ifdefs appear useful to me
if I was a developer that works on this driver.
Is this the right thing to delete them?
Thanks,
Ksenia
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
