Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:23:40 +0900
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: glen lee <glen.lee@atmel.com>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, austin.shin@atmel.com,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas.FERRE@atmel.com,
	adel.noureldin@atmel.com, tony.cho@atmel.com, leo.kim@atmel.com,
	adham.abozaeid@atmel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/28] staging: wicl1000: isr_uh_routine: use netdev
 private wilc
Message-ID: <20151026082340.GA4643@kroah.com> (sfid-20151026_092353_487472_8EE7E624)
References: <1445578124-31486-1-git-send-email-glen.lee@atmel.com>
 <1445578124-31486-2-git-send-email-glen.lee@atmel.com>
 <20151025012944.GA22184@kroah.com>
 <562D8B2B.2000308@atmel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <562D8B2B.2000308@atmel.com>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:08:43AM +0900, glen lee wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2015년 10월 25일 10:29, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 02:28:18PM +0900, Glen Lee wrote:
> >>Use netdev private member wilc instead of g_linux_wlan and Change argument wilc
> >>with dev in the function request_threaded_irq to pass back to handler
> >>the function isr_uh_routine.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com>
> >>---
> >>  drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c | 9 +++++++--
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> >>index b036b96..7b0614d 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> >>@@ -229,10 +229,15 @@ static int dev_state_ev_handler(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long event
> >>  #if (defined WILC_SPI) || (defined WILC_SDIO_IRQ_GPIO)
> >>  static irqreturn_t isr_uh_routine(int irq, void *user_data)
> >>  {
> >>+	perInterface_wlan_t *nic;
> >>+	struct wilc *wl;
> >>+
> >>+	nic = netdev_priv(usedata);
> >This patch breaks the build, which means you didn't even test build the
> >series :(
> 
> Hi greg,
> 
> I built every patches I'v posted and also there is no build error for this patch.

I don't believe you, just look at the lines, it's obviously incorrect.

> Would you please reconsider this patch again?

Why would I ever accept a patch that is obviously wrong?  I would be a
horrible subsystem maintainer, and you would not want me to merge an
obviously broken patch from someone else into this driver, breaking it,
right?

I have no idea why you would expect me to ever accept this patch as-is.

greg k-h