From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:8047 "EHLO c60.cesmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751411Ab0BWURy (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:17:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath5k: remove stale function declarations, make some functions static From: Pavel Roskin To: Bob Copeland Cc: "John W. Linville" , ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20100219012802.12460.42239.stgit@mj.roinet.com> <20100219134448.GA2844@tuxdriver.com> <1266621325.25707.14.camel@mj> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:17:42 -0500 Message-Id: <1266956262.16604.1.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 10:30 -0500, Bob Copeland wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 08:44 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 08:28:02PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > >> Any reason not to just remove those functions instead of commenting > >> them out? > > > > I'm fine either way. I tend to clean up more aggressively if I know > > that nobody will miss that code. I wasn't sure in this case. > > I don't think it will be a big deal if they disappear. I think most of > them are just there because the original HAL had them. > > Maybe one or two functions are waiting on an API in the stack to be useful > (e.g. antenna stuff), but we can always get these routines back from git > history if need be. I see you are doing that work already, so please just tell me if I need to resubmit my patches. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin