Re: netdev->priv and netdev_priv(dev)

[Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>]

Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> Those drivers were making a incorrect assumption and should be fixed.
> The in-tree drivers were fixed when this was done. If you have an out
> of tree driver, then too bad for you.

I have few out-of-tree drivers (IOW not yet merged) but they aren't
affected. These in the tree are (actually I was contacted by driver's
author and am considering the best way to fix this).

> The additional overhead of the address calculation would slow down the
> well behaved drivers.

There is always dev->priv.

> There was discussion of alternative layouts of
> the network device allocation or limiting the number of subqueue's so
> that netdev_priv could be a simple addition again, but nothing came of
> it.

This isn't about an addition, netdev_priv() is still there. The
semantics silently changed, that's it.

I'm fine with its removal, is it ok? The trivial "return dev->priv"
isn't worth it anyway.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa