On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 20:16 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: > Sorry for the top-posting, but I'm provided with the tools they give me > and bottom posting from Outlook just confuses email threads. Plus, this > was crossposted all over creation and cc-ed to anyone with an intel > address.
Not quite. It was posted to the names listed under the MAINTAINERS entry. INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS M: Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]> R: Jesse Brandeburg <[email protected]> R: Shannon Nelson <[email protected]> R: Carolyn Wyborny <[email protected]> R: Don Skidmore <[email protected]> R: Matthew Vick <[email protected]> R: John Ronciak <[email protected]> R: Mitch Williams <[email protected]> L: [email protected] btw: You aren't listed there Todd. Should you be? > I still would say no if I'm allowed, because to guarantee that this > change - that I don't think fixes anything Simplicity for the reader is generally a good thing. Removing the macros altogether is likely better. > - works in all cases, we > need to do an incredible amount of regression testing. Compilers should not produce different object code. Verification of no object changes should be good enough. > Every variant of > every Intel part that uses this driver (and there are many) should be > tested and will end up being used by the community. > > Plus, you have no idea the number of obscure bugs I have to deal with > as the guy answering customer questions. If this triggers some odd > embedded compiler bug, I'm going to have to dig it out. Unless there is > an actual bug, I'd like to leave it as it is. If any compiler miscompiles the ARRAY_SIZE macro, there are bound to be real issues with using that compiler in a production environment. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
