Re: [PATCH 3/8] rtl8192u: don't trample on <linux/ieee80211.h> struct namespace

[Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>]

Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> writes:
> [Re: [PATCH 3/8] rtl8192u: don't trample on <linux/ieee80211.h> struct
> namespace] On 30/04/2015 (Thu 09:52) Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
>> Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> writes:
>> > In order to start reducing the duplicated code/constants/macros in this
>> > driver, we need to include <linux/ieee80211.h> to provide the defacto
>> > versions.  However this driver has structs with the same name as the
>> > ones in the main include, so namespace collision prevents us from doing
>> > step #1.
>> >
>> > Since the structs actually differ in their respective fields, we can't
>> > simply delete the local ones without impacting the runtime; a conversion
>> > to use the global ones can be considered at a later date if desired.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> > Rename the ones here with a vendor specific prefix so that we won't have
>> > the namespace collision, and hence can continue on with the cleanup.
>> >
>> > Automated conversion done with:
>> >
>> >     for i in `find . -name '*.[ch]'` ; do \
>> >       sed -i 's/struct ieee80211_hdr/struct rtl_80211_hdr/g' $i ; \
>> >     done
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211.h     | 44 +++++++-------
>> >  .../rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_crypt_ccmp.c      | 10 ++--
>> >  .../rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_crypt_tkip.c      | 26 ++++-----
>> > drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c | 68
> +++++++++++-----------
>> >  .../staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_softmac.c | 32 +++++-----
>> >  drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_tx.c  | 14 ++---
>> >  .../staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/rtl819x_BAProc.c    | 48 +++++++--------
>> >  drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c             | 12 ++--
>> >  8 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 127 deletions(-)
>> 
>> Rather than just renaming these headers to avoid the conflict, it seems
>> to me the better solution is to convert the code to use the ieee80211.h
>> provided ones from the kernel?
>
> That is what I said in paragraph #2 above.  If someone wants to do this
> later, then fine.  And then it can be done incrementally and tested by
> someone who has the actual hardware.  In the meantime, this is better
> than what was there, and since it is in staging, a realisitc expectation
> is multiple small incremental improvements IMHO.

Sorry too far behind on emails, I missed that part.

I am fine with this approach - we just need a volunteer!

Jes