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
|