From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 22 18:08:52 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233) id 9DF7B1065673; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:08:52 +0000 From: Alexander Best To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20111222180852.GA6965@freebsd.org> References: <201112211716.pBLHGhDH078507@svn.freebsd.org> <201112211700.42772.jhb@freebsd.org> <20111221232754.GA51331@freebsd.org> <201112220802.27434.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201112220802.27434.jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd , src-committers@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric , svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r228785 - in head/sys/dev/ath/ath_hal: ar5210 ar5211 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:08:52 -0000 On Thu Dec 22 11, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:27:54 pm Alexander Best wrote: > > On Wed Dec 21 11, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:52:04 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > > Erm, why did you do this without first getting clearance from someone > > > > who has the hardware to test it? > > > > > > > > Just because it looks obviously wrong to you, doesn't at all mean that > > > > it's "wrong". It's quite possible that the driver _requires_ those > > > > bits to be written to the hardware as 0. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate it if would please revert this and other ath/hal > > > > changes until I've had time to research them and test them out. > > > > > > I agree it should be reviewed, but if you are seriously depending on > > > the fact that the shifted values are beyond the edge of the word boundary > > > and so the result "wraps" to zero, then I'd question the sanity of your code. > > > > i disagree. > > You don't think changes should be reviewed (that's what I said above, I did > not necessarily say it should be reverted)? That's way out in left field if > that is what you really think. no of course not. let's handle it this way: keep the commits and adrian@ and everybody else can test dim@'s changes. if the commits broke anything, they should be reverted. the next time dim@ is about to touch non trivial code or code that is being maintained by a certain developer, he should post his patches to some mailinglist (-wireless@ in this case) and cc that particular developer (adrian@ in this case). no hard feelings. ;) cheers. alex > > As for reverting the changes, I think they are small enough that is probably > a bit overboard unless someone else reports an actual problem with them. > (Specifically, I don't think the bar is high enough in this case to warrant a > reversion.) However, I think that for future changes, Dimitry should get > these sort of changes reviewed before committing them. > > -- > John Baldwin