From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel IXP4xx network drivers v.2 - NPE Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 15:56:20 +0200 Message-ID: References: <5BB7E1AB-5CE1-43C8-8CE3-E0DE0236BD09@cam.ac.uk> <86D26EBE-5899-468F-9C79-23E83E0DE04B@cam.ac.uk> <8CA5FD65-BEE1-4769-B1DF-81CA82210F61@cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff Garzik , netdev@vger.kernel.org, lkml , Russell King , ARM Linux Mailing List To: Michael-Luke Jones Return-path: In-Reply-To: <8CA5FD65-BEE1-4769-B1DF-81CA82210F61@cam.ac.uk> (Michael-Luke Jones's message of "Tue, 8 May 2007 08:02:15 +0100") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Michael-Luke Jones writes: > Already in mach-ixp4xx, so can just be called npe.c I want ixp4xx_ prefix in module name, otherwise I'd call it npe.c, sure. > Debugging code? Can this go? Why? Especially with code having to work with third party binary-only firmware? Suicide. They are eliminated at build time = performance hit (OTOH this file isn't on any fast path). > It may be a matter of taste, but could some of the many definitions > at the top of ixp4xx_npe.c go in the header file here? It's actually not only a matter of taste, they are private to the .c file and I don't want to make them available to the public (but sure, I don't like them in .c either, I think nobody likes such definitions anywhere but they have to exist somewhere). -- Krzysztof Halasa