> From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 7:42 PM > To: David Lin <yu-hao.lin@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx; francesco@xxxxxxxxxx; Pete > Hsieh <tsung-hsien.hsieh@xxxxxxx>; Francesco Dolcini > <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for client mode > > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or > opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report > this email' button > > > Hello David, > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 02:00:35AM +0000, David Lin wrote: > > > From: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > ... > > > > .../net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_ioctl.c | 2 +- > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_tx.c | 9 +- > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/util.c | 80 +++++ > > > > 15 files changed, 671 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > > > (Per the above, I'd normally consider whether ~671 new lines is > > > worth splitting into multiple patches. But I don't see any great > > > logical ways to do that.) > > Francesco suggested to use two patches for this host mlme new feature > > from previous many patches. I knew it is a lot of changes, but I think > > it should be the best way to add host mlme with two patches (one for > > client and one for AP). > > What I explicitly asked was to not add code in a patch, and fix the newly added > code in a following patch. What you are supposed to do is to just amend the > original code when you get review feedback. > Yes. I will do that for patch v10 and keep all 'Review-by:' and 'Tested-by:' tags. > Splitting a big patch into multiple patches is welcome to easier review, and this > needs to be done breaking down in logical pieces keeping in mind also > bisect-ability. > > This [1] is an example of the addition of a relatively big new driver, and you > can see that the series is broken down in smaller patches like "Add skeleton > PowerVR driver", with intermediate steps that were non-functional, but they > were building fine, they were correct and they were enabling more effective > code review. > > Unfortunately, as Brian agreed here, there was no easy way to do it for this > patch. > > Francesco > > [1] > https://lore.kern/ > el.org%2Fall%2Fcover.1700668843.git.donald.robson%40imgtec.com%2F&data > =05%7C02%7Cyu-hao.lin%40nxp.com%7C6ce04f812a5b4dd7e74908dc47405cc > 7%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6384635889617189 > 65%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiL > CJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HPgEuiKfmtEicp > PfTz57piOdOoT0iQfo5qnPp9p6jlY%3D&reserved=0
