Re: [PATCH repost] net,wireless: check against default_ethtool_ops

[Jiri Pirko <jiri-rHqAuBHg3fBzbRFIqnYvSA@public.gmane.org>]

Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 12:20:12PM CET, sgruszka-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 12:11:08PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:44:14AM CET, sgruszka-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:23:07AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >-static const struct ethtool_ops default_ethtool_ops;
>> >> >+const struct ethtool_ops default_ethtool_ops;
>> >> >+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(default_ethtool_ops);
>> >> 
>> >> I think that default_ethtool_ops should stay static. Wouldn't it be
>> >> nicer to introduce a helper like:
>> >> 
>> >> bool dev_has_default_ethtool_ops(struct net_device *dev)
>> >> {
>> >> 	return dev->ethtool_ops == &default_ethtool_ops;
>> >> }
>> >
>> >Then I still have to export this function. So with your approch, number
>> >of exported symbols will be the same, but there will be few more lines
>> >of code.
>> 
>> I think it's always better to add few more lines in order to prevent possible
>> confusion which exporting default_ethtool_ops might introduce...
>
>What possible confusion it might cause?

Someone would possibly like to do:

dev->netdev_ops = &default_ethtool_ops

in drivers for example...

+ I just do not think that exporting structs is the correct way in order
to do anything.

>
>Stanislaw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html