Hi Patrik, Thank you for your quick answer and your help.
> On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 17:13 +0200, Mylene Josserand wrote: >> > On 05/13/2015 01:10 PM, Tomasz Bursztyka wrote: >> >> Hi Mylene, >> >> >> >>> I understand and see (in outline) how adapt the code. >> >>> Thank you for the tips, it will help me a lot if the Frederik solution's >> >>> did not >> >>> work for me. >> >> >> >> Looks like Frederik's solution works with either context A or context B, >> >> not >> >> both at same time. >> >> >> >> Anyway, if you get a patch that works, you will be welcomed to send it on >> >> this >> >> ML. >> > >> > Okay, I will let you know if I managed to get it work. >> > >> >> >> Sorry for my (very) late answer. > > We're fine with a bit longer real world schedules, no worries here. > >> I have managed to handle two (or more) internet contexts at the same >> time, 2-3 days after my last post but I was busy so I did not have >> time to send a patch. >> >> I have implemented it (and tested it) with version 1.29. I am >> currently merging it to the last version of connman. >> >> There are many modifications and I do not really know how I should >> categorize them into patches series. As I removed the "network" >> property in modem_data and added it into context_data, there are many >> functions that are impacted. > > Ideally it should be be possible to present this kind of major > structural change with moving data from one structure to another by > creating a bigger patch that does only that with no loss of > functionality. Out of necessity this patch then touches quite many > places at the same time. Ideally the next (or previous) patch(es) in the > series would then add the desired feature change(s). But as you propose > below,... Okay, I understand. >> If it is okay for you, I thought I could send one patch with all >> modifications and if there is a way to categorize, you could report it >> to me. > > ...you can also send one big patch where we can help you categorizing > and splitting up the functionality into smaller patches. To help us > remember this still next week, add 'RFC' to the patch subject and write > the commit or cover letter message to indicate that you are asking for > input in splitting up this patch. I think I found 3 "categories" so I will send a patch series (but I will add the RFC flag as I am not sure about it). > >> I tried to follow the coding style and I checked the code with >> checkpatch.pl script from Linux kernel. I hope it will be okay. > > Kernel coding style is mostly ok, we'll do any additional nitpicking > after or during split up. I'd concentrate more on the patch splitting > first with nitpicking later. Causes one more round, but is probably less > confusing this way. Okay, it is fine for me. Thank you ! Mylène _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
