From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [Prism54-devel] Re: Prism54 in 2.6.4-bk2 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:01:16 -0500 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <4056A63C.50808@pobox.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040313180709.00ab4250@pop.t-online.de> <1079199572.7111.0.camel@lapy.tuxslare.org> <20040313203058.GY32439@ruslug.rutgers.edu> <20040313221529.GC32439@ruslug.rutgers.edu> <40569B4B.2020402@pobox.com> <20040316064758.GI24063@ruslug.rutgers.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Linux kernel mailing list , prism54-devel@prism54.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, jgarzik@redhat.com Return-path: To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" In-Reply-To: <20040316064758.GI24063@ruslug.rutgers.edu> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 01:14:35AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >>>Regarding WDS on prism54: on the netdev list we discussed this >>>but no one got back to me as to whether we should really just nuke this >>>code. Prism54 driver source *does* include WDS support because hey, the >>>firmware does. Why wouldn't it go in the driver? We haven't given WDS >>>much though anyway since it's also been low priority on our TODO list. >> >>The WDS code was dead code as merged. >> >>If you actually use it, I don't mind adding it :) > > > I don't know of anybody who uses it. We did consider to drop it but we > just never got around to deciding what we were going to do about it. I > know it's there and it's *supposed* to work. > > Can we get back to you on that? :) It is just code that *is* > driver/hardware specific. For code is that (a) experimental, (b) for pre-production hardware, or (c) rarely if ever used, we would prefer to not merge it at all. When I see stuff like "TODO: actually give this some thought" and "I don't know anybody who uses it", that means it doesn't need to be merged in the upstream tree :) > Actually can I just send you a patch for 2.6 for the latest 2.6 tree to > match ours? That is, rm -rf prism54/ as is and add our latest patch ? > It'd save a lot of work on our end. It depends on how big the patch is, and whether or not it adds code that nobody but the dev team uses, etc... I don't want to add the WDS code, since nobody uses it... and adding the #ifdefs I removed would not be desired either. Those #ifdefs aren't need in the upstream tree. I plan to remove them from other upstream drivers, too. WRT submitting patches... send away. drivers/net patches should go -> Jean T -> jgarzik+netdev or simply -> jgarzik+netdev, your choice. In general "50 small patches are better than 1 big patch". Large updates are not reviewable or easily testable. Large patches tend to fix 20 bugs, and add 5 new ones. Jeff