[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] ethtool_ops rev 4

To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethtool_ops rev 4
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:34:15 -0700
Cc: willy@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3F2AF938.7050608@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030801150232.GV22222@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030801154021.GA7696@xxxxxxx> <20030801154656.GW22222@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030801162536.GA18574@xxxxxxx> <20030801132037.3f3542ae.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F2AE91D.5090705@xxxxxxxxx> <3F2AEB33.9050506@xxxxxxxxx> <20030801153439.4a324c36.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F2AF32F.7090201@xxxxxxxxx> <20030801160857.32ebbf22.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F2AF938.7050608@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:35:20 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Inside an area allocated by the kcompat lib.  SET_ETHTOOL_OPS takes 
> 'struct net_device *' and 'struct ethtool_ops *' arguments, so it simply 
> needs to create a lookup list/table somewhere.

Ok ok ok, we're converging :-)

Please just comment on my other email suggesting a way
to do away with DO_ETHTOOL_OPS.

I'm OK with a SET_ETHTOOL_OPS() macro.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>