Re: [PATCH] ethtool_ops rev 4

[Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>]

On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:14:26PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >Nothing stops it being implemented as a macro in kcompat.  Having it as
> >an inline function gives it argument typechecking which always gives me
> >the warm fuzzies.
> 
> No, it _needs_ to be a macro for maximum flexibility.
> 
> Most importantly, kcompat code may use '#ifndef SET_ETHTOOL_OPS' as a 
> trigger, to signal that compat code is needed.  No need for drivers to 
> create tons of kernel-version-code ifdefs, just to test for when 
> ethtool_ops appeared in 2.6, for when it starts appearing in 2.4 vendor 
> backports, and (possibly) 2.4 itself.  Also, doing it at the cpp level 
> allows compat code to #undef it, if it _really_ knows what its doing, 
> and the situation calls for it.

OK.  At this point, I really feel like I'm getting in the way and
hindering more than I'm helping.  Can I pass the torch to you and let
you finish the job?

-- 
"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