[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/1] ath9k: merge ath9k_txq_info and ath9k_tx_queue_info structures

[Alistair John Strachan <alistair@devzero.co.uk>]

On Thursday 07 August 2008 04:45:27 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Alistair John Strachan
>
> <alistair@devzero.co.uk> wrote:
> > Merge struct ath9k_txq_info into struct ath9k_tx_queue_info. This
> > change was mostly mechanical with the exception of the field tqi_compBuf
> > which is renamed as tqi_physCompBuf and fixed up where it was used.
> >
> > Merging the structures the other way would also have been possible,
> > but the ath9k_tx_queue_info name is more consistent with other similarly
> > named structures declared above.
>
> Thanks, I think Sujith was working on this too, also Jouni is working
> on beaconing stuff so they can iron the integration out.

It's a bit disappointing that this very same patch has appeared from you 
internally. Maybe some more communication is required to make sure there isn't 
duplicated work, like for example updates on what Atheros are actually doing 
themselves from the TODO list. Otherwise I don't see that community 
participation is easily possible.

> > Patch is compile time and runtime tested.
>
> Thanks for the heads up, you should only mention something like this
> if *you didn't* test the patch. Otherwise its assumed you did. Also
> just a minor note, if you send only one patch there is no need to send
> a patch 0/1.

If you know of a way of disabling the apparently mandatory --compose --subject 
feature of git-send-email I'd love to hear it. From what I can see, even 
though it might be optimized for sending patch series, an intro patch is still 
sometimes useful for information that should NOT end up in the commit log.

Also I have to disagree with you over the "implicitly tested" thing. I've been 
reading LKML for too long and know that the frequency of poorly or completely 
untested patches that people try to push can be high. On reflection this 
information should have appeared in the intro rather than the patch.

> > Changes-licensed-under: ISC
>
> No need for this for us, if you tell us once you are keeping the
> license for all subsequent patches for ath9k that's good enough for
> our records. But thanks for your consideration on this.

Yep, okay.

-- 
Cheers,
Alistair.