AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20070627145957.12dc218c@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0451DB0D@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:00:25 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Maxim Kozlovsky" <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: Please review
Message-ID: <20070627150025.39574927@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0451DB0D@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0451D5F1@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20070627142616.06e462bf@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0451DB0D@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:47:24 -0700 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:

> 
> linux/kernel/linux-mips-2.6/include/net/neteee/eee.h
> 
>      line 3 (removal of nfx-types.h include)
>      uh, say what? no, no, no, no, no, let's discuss
>      thinking about it more, is this even the right name for this
> file? should there be a nfxeee.h kernel/userspace include file for eee
>      definitions?  or is this nfx-types.h file something else
> altogether?
> MK> There were no definitions used from this file.

okee

>      line 60-61
>      this is completely broken, what is this?  a richard-ism, i
> presume?
> MK> Removed unused bsdism.
> 
>      line 77
>      yeah, these prototypes probably don't belong in here.  or do
> they?
> MK> They don't. R copied them from bsd code for no reason.
> 
> linux/kernel/linux-mips-2.6/net/Makefile
> 
>      looks good
> 
> 
> linux/kernel/linux-mips-2.6/net/neteee/neteee.c
> 
>      line 63
>      uh, not what i had in mind.  there's no "dragging" of header
> files. the combined kernel/userspace header file(s) need to be
> defined and coded, and the makefiles will take care of the rest at
> build time. So, all you have to do is the coding and defining part.
> someone else
>      will finish the makefile part.  someone else named larry.  after
> i teach him what is needed, which isn't much.
> 
> MK> These constants are not used anywhere in the user code. They are
> used only in EEE code, which is compiled with its own set of include
> files and different compiler. This means that either the linux
> compilation has to reference the nfx-tree directory, or the nfx-tree
> compilation has to reference the linux directory, or they both must
> reference some other directory. I personally don't really care either
> way, since you have some ideas on what to do with the include files it
> would be great if you will just make a decision and we stop going in
> circles arguing about it.

I made the decision a long time ago, and I haven't understood the
circles and detours that keep happening over this.  Here it is:

any definitions needed by both kernel and userspace go into a separate
kernel header file kept (checked into perforce) in the kernel tree,
written by the engineer who does the kernel work.  who is now max.

makefiles take care of getting this header file to a place that
userspace needs it in order to build, at kernel build time.  this
makefile work will be done by larry.  in the very short term, until that
makefile work happens, userspace people can just hand copy the file to
somewhere useful in order to build stuff.

as far as this checkin goes, if it is self contained, then go ahead.
the header file can be done in a separate checkin.

>      line 977, 1050
>      change to #ifdef DEBUG or similar equivalent
>      actually, a module paramenter for debug level would be a good
> thing for this.
> MK> Changed ifdef. 
> 
> nfx-tree/code/sm-anpssc/Makefile
> 
>      line 48
>      what is this?  either we need this file or we don't.
>      i must be missing something.
> MK> I have no idea, copied from some other makefile.

hm, somebody goofed that review then.  not your problem.

>      line 56
>      excellent
> 
> nfx-tree/code/sm-anpssc/anpssctest.c
> 
>      >>add nfx-tree/code/sm-anpssc/anpssctest.c
> 
>      fix the trailing whitespace in places.
> 
>      nice.  where did this come from?  did we have it before or did
> you write it "just now"?
> MK> OK. Just now.
> 
