From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Kirsher Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:53:55 -0700 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 3/2] e1000e: convert systim overflow check to use flags2 In-Reply-To: <1469554746-410-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> References: <20160725105648.00000dda@unknown> <1469554746-410-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1469555635.2851.10.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: 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 > CC: Jesse Brandeburg > CC: Jeff Kirsher > CC: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org > CC: netdev at vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson > --- > ?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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: