From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernard Pidoux Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] [ROSE] rose_get_route() template Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:42:35 +0100 Message-ID: <478CC65B.9000505@ccr.jussieu.fr> References: <47630274.1080706@ccr.jussieu.fr> <47892051.8000404@ccr.jussieu.fr> <478923FD.9040704@cosmosbay.com> <47893127.2080606@ccr.jussieu.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Ralf Baechle DL5RB , Alexey Dobriyan , David Miller , Linux Netdev List To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from smtp5-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.35]:47538 "EHLO smtp5-g19.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750752AbYAOOnF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:43:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <47893127.2080606@ccr.jussieu.fr> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, I wrote a "simplified" get_route() function. It is declared as static following judicious Eric's remark. Then, the following patch of include/net/rose.h is no more necessary. A new commit for rose_get_route() will be presented in next message. Thank you Eric for pushing me to reexamine my code. Regards, Bernard P. Bernard Pidoux wrote: >=20 >=20 > Eric Dumazet wrote: >> Bernard Pidoux a =E9crit : >>> From 46bccce1e660a39bcc8f8cf87d4c17de33f4ba48 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 = 2001 >>> From: Bernard Pidoux >>> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:01:46 +0100 >>> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] [ROSE] template declaration for rose_get_route= () >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bernard Pidoux >>> --- >>> include/net/rose.h | 1 + >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/net/rose.h b/include/net/rose.h >>> index e5bb084..d3ab453 100644 >>> --- a/include/net/rose.h >>> +++ b/include/net/rose.h >>> @@ -202,6 +202,7 @@ extern struct net_device *rose_dev_first(void); >>> extern struct net_device *rose_dev_get(rose_address *); >>> extern struct rose_route *rose_route_free_lci(unsigned int, struct= =20 >>> rose_neigh *); >>> extern struct rose_neigh *rose_get_neigh(rose_address *, unsigned=20 >>> char *, unsigned char *); >>> +extern struct rose_neigh *rose_get_route(rose_address *, unsigned=20 >>> char *, unsigned char *); >>> extern int rose_rt_ioctl(unsigned int, void __user *); >>> extern void rose_link_failed(ax25_cb *, int); >>> extern int rose_route_frame(struct sk_buff *, ax25_cb *); >>> --=20 >> >> Strange... if rose_get_route() is used only in net/rose/rose_route.c= ,=20 >> why dont you define it static, and not extern in include/net/rose.h = ? >> >> >> >=20 > I agree. You are perfectly right. > There is no need to declare rose_get_route() external. > I stupidly copied rose_get_neigh()definition from which I derived=20 > rose_get_route(); >=20 > Also I am not sure that setting cause and diagnostic is necessary, as= =20 > they are not used by the calling function. >=20 > By the way. I made a typo in [PATCH 4/4]. >=20 > Instead of "Initial connection to rose neighbour nodes was unusually, > t0 timer was blocked and application program could not > use socket." >=20 > One should read > "Initial connection to rose neighbour nodes was unusually, > long, t0 timer was blocked and application program could not > use socket." >=20 > Bernard P. >=20 >=20 >=20