On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 03:01 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > Following patterns is good, I just think the > pattern could be trivially improved. It's a question of what makes sense though - nobody implements stop_xyz without implementing start_xyz, and even if they do it's pointless. It's just that if you have start_xyz most/all of your functional tests might work, but we'd really like to have stop_xyz as well. It's not *worse* to check for the XOR (like you suggest below), but it's not really any better either. > The test is a runtime check on what would ideally > be done at compile time. If you have any suggestions how to do that then that'd be great :) I don't really see a way of doing that since this depends on the driver and the driver might even fill the struct at runtime (like hwsim does IIRC) > Using > WARN_ON(!a ^ !b) > which is logically the same as what I wrote above > for clarity is simply a bit more coverage and maybe > even a bit run-time faster. Don't think we have to worry much about the runtime overhead, but that's a nice idea. As I said above though, I don't think it really makes a difference. johannes -- 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
