On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:17:03PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:57:21PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>Well, I don't see/understand this next-stage, so elaboration would be
> >>nice. As-is, I do not support merging this patch.
> >It's the next stage you're calling for -- move these functions:
> > dev->change_mtu = eth_change_mtu;
> > dev->hard_header = eth_header;
> > dev->rebuild_header = eth_rebuild_header;
> > dev->set_mac_address = eth_mac_addr;
> > dev->hard_header_cache = eth_header_cache;
> > dev->header_cache_update= eth_header_cache_update;
> > dev->hard_header_parse = eth_header_parse;
> >into netdev_ops. Which means each driver will need to see them.
> Drivers don't need to see them now, they shouldn't need to see them
> after netdev_ops.
> It's hidden by ether_setup.
Umm. Technically, yes. Seems a bit ugly to assign to the netdev_ops
struct which is shared between the devices. Won't _break_ anything
(unless some crazed person has a driver which drives the ethernet and
token ring versions of the same chip ;-)
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk