2011/5/18 Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx>: > W dniu 18 maja 2011 09:21 użytkownik Julian Calaby > <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> napisał: >> As I see it, having two sets of mostly identical wrapper functions in >> a file seems incorrect to me. Especially as once the abstraction is >> complete it would technically be correct to build b43 without SSB >> support - it's much cleaner to not compile a file than have a massive >> #ifdef block in a common file. >> >> Anyway, it's only a minor thing. > > Massive? It's *one* ifdef for one bus type in this file. I count massive by the amount of code within the block, not the number of ifdefs. >>> A one quick question: >>> Why didn't you respond in "[RFC][PATCH] b43: add bus abstraction >>> layer" on 2011-04-08? Or more recent "[RFC ONLY 2/5] b43: add bus >>> device abstraction later" posted on 2011-05-09? >> >> While I try to read every patch that passes through the linux-wireless >> mailing list, I only skim them, and tend to miss some details. The >> thing that prompted this comment was the SSB comment at the start of >> the SSB specific wrappers - something I probably didn't read the last >> two times the patch came up on the list. > > OK, I ask because it's much easier to discuss such a things before you > got 20 patches. That's why I posted very early RFC. I know, I completely understand. This was just a small query. If it had jumped out at me earlier, I would have commented then. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/ -- 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
