Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1380655 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3] prism54: isl_38xx: Replace 'struct timeval'

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3] prism54: isl_38xx: Replace 'struct timeval' Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-04-17 01:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3] prism54: isl_38xx: Replace 'struct timeval' Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2016-04-17 14:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3] prism54: isl_38xx: Replace 'struct timeval' Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-04-18 00:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3] prism54: isl_38xx: Replace 'struct timeval' Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2016-04-19 11:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3] prism54: isl_38xx: Replace 'struct timeval' Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> - 2016-04-22 20:10 +0200

#1380655 — Re: [PATCH v3] prism54: isl_38xx: Replace 'struct timeval'

On Wednesday 13 April 2016 10:38:26 Johannes Berg wrote:
> > The patch was build-tested / debugged by removing the
> > "if VERBOSE > SHOW_ERROR_MESSAGES" guards.
> 
> Stands to reason that we should just remove the (more or less) dead
> code, since I don't think anyone really ever touches this driver any
> more or will ever again ...

Do you mean removing all DEBUG() statements from the driver, or
removing the entire driver?

	Arnd

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1380746

On Sun, 2016-04-17 at 01:34 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 April 2016 10:38:26 Johannes Berg wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > The patch was build-tested / debugged by removing the
> > > "if VERBOSE > SHOW_ERROR_MESSAGES" guards.
> > Stands to reason that we should just remove the (more or less) dead
> > code, since I don't think anyone really ever touches this driver
> > any
> > more or will ever again ...
> Do you mean removing all DEBUG() statements from the driver, or
> removing the entire driver?
> 

We tried removing the driver once, since p54 supposedly drives the same
hardware, but some people had certain use cases that didn't work there,
apparently.

I was thinking more restrictively of just the stuff that can't even be
built without modifying the sources - like the "#if VERBOSE" thing.

johannes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1380853

On Sunday 17 April 2016 14:42:33 Johannes Berg wrote:
> 
> I was thinking more restrictively of just the stuff that can't even be
> built without modifying the sources - like the "#if VERBOSE" thing.

All the DEBUG() statements are inside of this kind of check, so if we
remove the #ifdefs, it would be logical to remove the rest of the debugging
infrastructure (DEBUG() macros, SHOW_*, pc_debug, maybe more) as well.

	Arnd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1382293

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 00:10 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 17 April 2016 14:42:33 Johannes Berg wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I was thinking more restrictively of just the stuff that can't even
> > be
> > built without modifying the sources - like the "#if VERBOSE" thing.
> All the DEBUG() statements are inside of this kind of check, so if we
> remove the #ifdefs, it would be logical to remove the rest of the
> debugging infrastructure (DEBUG() macros, SHOW_*, pc_debug, maybe
> more) as well.
> 

Seems reasonable.

Maybe we should Cc the maintainer, but I suspect that since the driver
is marked Obsolete anyway Luis won't care either :)

johannes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1385414

Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:

> On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 00:10 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Sunday 17 April 2016 14:42:33 Johannes Berg wrote:
>> > 
>> > I was thinking more restrictively of just the stuff that can't even
>> > be built without modifying the sources - like the "#if VERBOSE"
>> > thing.
>>
>> All the DEBUG() statements are inside of this kind of check, so if we
>> remove the #ifdefs, it would be logical to remove the rest of the
>> debugging infrastructure (DEBUG() macros, SHOW_*, pc_debug, maybe
>> more) as well.
>
> Seems reasonable.
>
> Maybe we should Cc the maintainer, but I suspect that since the driver
> is marked Obsolete anyway Luis won't care either :)

I'm planning to apply this patch anyway, the debugging infrastructure
removal can be a followup patch. But please let me know if I should drop
this instead.

-- 
Kalle Valo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web