Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 15:39:44 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Malcolm Priestley <tvboxspy@gmail.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] staging: vt6656: vnt_beacon_xmit use
 extra_tx_headroom.
Message-ID: <20200518123944.GI2078@kadam>
References: <5f00d319-9242-65b2-d100-dcfe9b0e32be@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5f00d319-9242-65b2-d100-dcfe9b0e32be@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:39:34AM +0100, Malcolm Priestley wrote:
> Create room for vnt_tx_short_buf_head in sk_buff and vnt_tx_usb_header.
> 
> The struct ieee80211_mgmt is not longer in the header and is at
> the initial skb->data point.

I feel like the SubmittingPatches guidelines on verb tenses and not
saying "this patch" or "I" has got everyone so worried that it's like
playing Taboo.  Do you mean that the struct moved before or after we
aply *this patch*?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Malcolm Priestley <tvboxspy@gmail.com>

I can't understand the point of this patch at all.  Is it a fix or a
clean up?  If I had to guess from the subjec, I would say it's a
performance improvement but I don't know.

regards,
dan carpenter