From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: bjorn@mork.no (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?=)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:29:14 +0200
Subject: Advice on first patch
In-Reply-To: <1349175364-21936-1-git-send-email-matthew@walster.org>
	(matthew@walster.org's message of "Tue, 2 Oct 2012 11:56:03 +0100")
References: <1349175364-21936-1-git-send-email-matthew@walster.org>
Message-ID: <87pq51m7sl.fsf@nemi.mork.no>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

matthew at walster.org writes:

> I'm hopefully going to be submitting the attached patch to the
> mainline kernel tree, and as it's my first patch, I figured it would
> be wise to run it past KN first in case I'd done something
> monumentally stupid! I found it through a checkpatch run, from the
> excellent talk by GregKH at FOSDEM a year or so back.
>
> Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Looks fine to me, but you might want to remove/update the related
comment as well:

        /*
         *      This ALLMULTI check should be redundant by 1.4
         *      so don't forget to remove it.
         *
         *      Seems, you forgot to remove it. All silly devices
         *      seems to set IFF_PROMISC.
         */

        else if (1 /*dev->flags&IFF_PROMISC */ ) {
                if (unlikely(!ether_addr_equal_64bits(eth->h_dest,
                                                      dev->dev_addr)))
                        skb->pkt_type = PACKET_OTHERHOST;
        }



Looks like someone was expecting a 1.4 at the time.  We know better now
:-)


Bj?rn