Return-path: Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]:45184 "EHLO mail-oa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753859Ab2KSRsr (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:48:47 -0500 Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h16so5070518oag.19 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:48:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1353346581.10872.117.camel@cumari.coelho.fi> References: <1353343170-26516-1-git-send-email-eliad@wizery.com> <1353343170-26516-9-git-send-email-eliad@wizery.com> <1353344601.18299.31.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1353346581.10872.117.camel@cumari.coelho.fi> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:48:46 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20121119_184851_787839_619082C0) Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] wlcore: add chanctx implementation From: Eliad Peller To: Luciano Coelho Cc: Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 19:16 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Johannes Berg >> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 18:39 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: >> >> Add some basic chanctx implementation. >> > >> > This patch will leave the driver in a broken state, and in fact probably >> > crashing trying to use hw.conf.channel. >> > >> you are right. i'm taking care of these in the following patches. >> i preferred splitting the patches for clarity instead of squashing >> them all into one big patch (removing hw.conf.channel references >> before implementing chanctx will break the driver as well). >> i guess i can squash them in this case, but i'm not sure it will >> really help, as other intermediate patches in this patchset might >> still break some functionality of the driver. >> >> i don't mind either way. whatever Luca will prefer :) >> (maybe keeping it that way for review, and only squashing them on apply?) > > I prefer if we can do it so that the driver is not broken, to make it > easier to bisect. But I also agree that for review, it's better to have > split up patches. > > So, your suggestion sounds good to me. Maybe you could send a final > squashed patchset when they're reviewed and ready to be applied? > sure. Eliad.