On Tuesday 18 March 2008 02:10:51 Harvey Harrison wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 02:00 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 March 2008 01:47:29 Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > [lots of patches] > > > > What do these patches actually fix? > > I see they shuffle a _lot_ of code around, but what does that > > actually fix? As I said, I won't apply any patch that just shuffles > > code without fixing anything. > > This was done as I checked through the remaining nested cases for > mismatched registers being read/written to after sending the fix > for the braces typo last week. The easiest way I found to do that > was convert them over as I checked them. Ok nice. > > This shuffling has a _HUGE_ risk of introducing bugs that I am NOT > > going to debug and fix afterwards. > > The code works pretty well. There's absolutely no need to rewrite it. > > > > And no, "this makes the code 200bytes smaller" doesn't count as a fix. :) > > > > Well, I think in some cases it looks a _lot_ better, I _completely_ agree with you. That was the reason I introduced the functions in the first place. > but I understand > your reluctance to mess with something lacking docs. Yep. These functions were never meant to replace the old G-PHY code. They were only meant to be used in _new_ code, like the N-PHY and possibly LP-PHY code. > I'm done here, just thought as I had done the work while checking it > I may as well make it available in case someone wanted it. Yeah, cool. Thanks a lot for checking. I really appreciate that a lot. While I still reject the patches, the actual review-work is a _lot_ more valueable anyway. Thanks a lot. Nice work. -- Greetings Michael. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
