From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>,
linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] staging: r8188eu: remove _io_ops structure
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 20:19:05 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d9e536d6-1b66-52d5-50a8-0c011b23e018@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YTYeGH+5MG5OeEbi@kroah.com>
On 9/6/21 16:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 12:00:46AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>> -void _rtw_read_mem(struct adapter *adapter, u32 addr, u32 cnt, u8 *pmem)
>> -{
>> - void (*_read_mem)(struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl, u32 addr, u32 cnt, u8 *pmem);
>> - struct io_priv *pio_priv = &adapter->iopriv;
>> - struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl = &pio_priv->intf;
>> -
>> -
>> - if (adapter->bDriverStopped || adapter->bSurpriseRemoved)
>> - return;
>> - _read_mem = pintfhdl->io_ops._read_mem;
>> - _read_mem(pintfhdl, addr, cnt, pmem);
>> -
>> -}
>
> This is odd, in that it resolves down to usb_read_mem which does
> nothing at all.
>
> And then no one calls this at all either?
>
> How about removing the io ops that are not used at all first, one at a
> time, making it obvious what is happening, and then convert the ones
> that are used one at a time, and when all is done, then removing the
> structure?
>
Just have started to cut one big patch to smaller ones and does it make
sense to group changes like: one for usb_read*, one for usb_write* and
one for usb_port*? I think, it would be cleaner and series won't be too big.
What do you think?
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-06 17:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-04 22:00 [PATCH v3 0/3] staging: r8188eu: Shorten and simplify calls chain Fabio M. De Francesco
2021-09-04 22:00 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] staging: r8188eu: remove _io_ops structure Fabio M. De Francesco
2021-09-06 13:56 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-09-06 14:01 ` Pavel Skripkin
2021-09-06 14:08 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-09-06 17:19 ` Pavel Skripkin [this message]
2021-09-07 5:01 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-09-04 22:00 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] staging: r8188eu: Shorten calls chain of rtw_read8/16/32() Fabio M. De Francesco
2021-09-06 14:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-09-06 14:22 ` Pavel Skripkin
2021-09-09 7:53 ` Fabio M. De Francesco
2021-09-10 15:19 ` Fabio M. De Francesco
2021-09-10 19:05 ` Fabio M. De Francesco
2021-09-04 22:00 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] staging: r8188eu: Shorten calls chain of rtw_write8/16/32/N() Fabio M. De Francesco
2021-09-07 10:10 ` David Laight
2021-09-07 10:17 ` Pavel Skripkin
2021-09-09 8:11 ` Fabio M. De Francesco
2021-09-09 8:21 ` David Laight
2021-09-09 8:31 ` Fabio M. De Francesco
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d9e536d6-1b66-52d5-50a8-0c011b23e018@gmail.com \
--to=paskripkin@gmail.com \
--cc=Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net \
--cc=fmdefrancesco@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-staging@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=phil@philpotter.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).