On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 07:53:19PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Monday 25 January 2010 19:36:27 Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > W dniu 25 stycznia 2010 19:35 użytkownik Rafał Miłecki
> > <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> napisał:
> > > 2010/1/25 Michael Buesch <mb@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > >> On Monday 25 January 2010 18:59:59 Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > >>> +/* Complex number using 2 32-bit signed integers */
> > >>> +typedef struct { s32 i, q; } b43_c32;
> > >>
> > >> No typedef. ever.
> > >
> > > Well, I just copied (Gabor's?) code here. But of course I can fix this
> > > by the way, no problem :)
>
> Yeah, I saw that. We can fix it while we're at it. ;)
>
> > > Just read about typedef in Linux Kernel Coding Style, didn't know
> > > about this earlier. Thanks for pointing.
> >
> > Is this OK to fix this in separated patch? Or should I modify this set
> > of patches?
>
> Well, as you touch any reference to the typedef anyway (you renamed it),
> you can just put the keyword "struct" in front of the references and no separate patch is needed.
> It won't even grow your current patch in the number of changed lines.
I took care of these modifications to the original patch...
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready.
--
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
