[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 3/2] e1000e: convert systim overflow check to use flags2

[Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:53:55AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 13:39 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > Per Jesse Brandeburg, e1000e should be using flags for this sort of
> > thing.
> > 
> > Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier
> > than
> > simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as
> > needed.
> > There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that
> > could/should be converted similarly.
> > 
> > At present, this patch is a follow-up to the previously submitted 2
> > patches, but I can redo the series to omit the conversion to a switch
> > entirely, if so desired.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
> > CC: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
> > CC: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
> > CC: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org
> > CC: netdev at vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > ?drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/82571.c?? |? 6 ++++--
> > ?drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/e1000.h?? |? 1 +
> > ?drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ich8lan.c |? 3 ++-
> > ?drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c? | 10 ++--------
> > ?4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> This generates a compile issue, so I will be dropping this patch and will
> await an update.

Yeah, just sent a note off-list, I really shouldn't send patches while on
conference calls. It's a typo in ich8lan.c, where I put FLAGS2_ instead of
FLAG2_. I'll just redo the entire set omitting the switch conversion.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at redhat.com