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
