From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: netdev->priv and netdev_priv(dev) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:52:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20080129124259.7c502d13@deepthought> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:39829 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753376AbYA2VwF (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:52:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080129124259.7c502d13@deepthought> (Stephen Hemminger's message of "Tue\, 29 Jan 2008 12\:42\:59 -0800") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Stephen Hemminger 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