netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Cc: Luis Rodriguez <Luis.Rodriguez@Atheros.com>,
	Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"mcgrof@kernel.org" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compat-wireless: updates for orinoco
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 17:18:30 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100505001830.GO2624@tux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100504170409.46914a88@nehalam>

On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 05:04:09PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2010 16:26:53 -0700
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
> 
> > First of all, thanks a lot! Some comments below.
> > 
> > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de> wrote:
> > > * Make all the patches apply again.
> > > * rename read_pda to avoid conflicts with definitions in kernel <= 2.6.29
> > 
> > I'm going to apply these two changes, if you get time can you send a
> > patch to rename read_pda upstream as well, that way we don't have to
> > carry this?
> > 
> > > * add orinoco usb
> > 
> > Thanks for this but I've grown tired of updating these netdev ops and
> > I think we can do better. I'll add a netdev_attach_ops() which would
> > simply do all the backport stuff for us, this way for backporting
> > purposes all we have to do is replace the old lines with a
> > netdev_attach_ops() call. In fact if we *really* wanted to we could
> > add a dummy netdev_attach_ops() upstream and just backport that on
> > older kernels, this would mean 0 line changes to backport a newer
> > driver.
> > 
> > Something like this maybe on the generic compat module, it builds for
> > me, will commit soon.
> > 
> > /*
> >  * Expand this as drivers require more ops, for now this
> >  * only sets the ones we need.
> >  */
> > void netdev_attach_ops(struct net_device *dev,
> >                       const struct net_device_ops *ops)
> > {
> > #define SET_NETDEVOP(_op) (_op ? _op : NULL)
> >        dev->open = SET_NETDEVOP(ops->ndo_open);
> >        dev->stop = SET_NETDEVOP(ops->ndo_stop);
> >        dev->hard_start_xmit = SET_NETDEVOP(ops->ndo_start_xmit);
> >        dev->set_multicast_list = SET_NETDEVOP(ops->ndo_set_multicast_list);
> >        dev->change_mtu = SET_NETDEVOP(ops->ndo_change_mtu);
> >        dev->set_mac_address = SET_NETDEVOP(ops->ndo_set_mac_address);
> >        dev->tx_timeout = SET_NETDEVOP(ops->ndo_tx_timeout);
> >        dev->get_stats = SET_NETDEVOP(ops->ndo_get_stats);
> > #undef SET_NETDEVOP
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(netdev_attach_ops);
> > 
> > For newer kernels then this would just be:
> > 
> > static inline void netdev_attach_ops(struct net_device *dev,
> >                       const struct net_device_ops *ops)
> > {
> >        dev->netdev_ops = ops;
> > }
> > 
> > Stephen, would the above be acceptable upstream on netdevice.h ? It
> > would eliminate all needs from having to #ifdef network drivers when
> > backporting. If so I can send a respective patch and spatch all the
> > setters I think. An example of the nasty ifdef crap we have to do for
> > the current backport of netdevop'able drivers is below.
> > 
> 
> No. supporting backporting is not part of the upstream kernel
> mission. Honestly, we try for forward compatibility but intentionally
> ignore carrying extra backport baggage.

Sure, understood, just had to try :), if only I could find a *good*
non-backport reason to have the netdev_attach_ops()...

  Luis

  reply	other threads:[~2010-05-05  0:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1273012850-8359-1-git-send-email-hauke@hauke-m.de>
2010-05-04 23:26 ` [PATCH] compat-wireless: updates for orinoco Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-05-05  0:04   ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-05-05  0:18     ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2010-05-05  1:47       ` Luis R. Rodriguez

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100505001830.GO2624@tux \
    --to=lrodriguez@atheros.com \
    --cc=Luis.Rodriguez@Atheros.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=hauke@hauke-m.de \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).