On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:27:09PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Matt Wilson <m...@amzn.com> > Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 23:23:36 -0700 > > > Point taken, though existing drivers (even fairly popular ones) also > > aren't as clean as you might like. A quick look around... > > Existing drivers do undesirable things, film at 11... > > Yet are never a reason to accept such things in new drivers.
I generally agree with this philosophy. > > Like many other network drivers, some of this is common code used for > > non-Linux systems, and that's why there is some overlap with Linux > > facilities. > > Again, never an excuse for such things. I suppose I was just happy to have the *majorly* objectionable parts cleaned up... > > Are there other things that jump out at you? > > I review hundreds of patches a day, I invested what I was able to > before moving on to other people's work. I wasn't asking you to do more, only if you had anything else you wanted to say before Netanel sends a v2. > Other developers must help review such a large driver submission, it > can't all be on me. And I'm certainly not saying it's all on you. I've been reviewing this with the team for quite a while to get it in pretty reasonable (IMHO) shape. --msw
