Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:49879 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752146Ab1LPTEn (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:04:43 -0500 Received: by vbbfc26 with SMTP id fc26so2717165vbb.19 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:04:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EEB9647.9080208@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20111216_200446_984090_78EA68DF) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:04:39 -0600 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= CC: b43-dev , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] b43: Rearranging functions in phy_n.c References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/16/2011 12:55 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > Hey, > > The order of functions in phy_n.c is really messy. I wanted to collect > related functions, fix order (dependency) and name goups via comments. > > Is there anything I should know? Patches are going to be huge, tons of > lines moved around the phy_n.c :( > > Are there any objections against that? Any suggestions if I should > post one huge patch or few smaller ones? Several smaller ones always help the reviewer. I would vote for that option. Larry