[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071023.192313.115635750.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jeff@...zik.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com,
ajax@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:20:30 -0400
> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
> > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:03:36 -0400
> >
> >> I'm wondering if there is a way to avoid adding
> >>
> >> if (!is_valid_ether_addr(dev->dev_addr))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> to every ethernet driver's ->open() hook.
> >
> > The first idea I get is:
> >
> > 1) Create netdev->validate_dev_addr().
> >
> > 2) If it exists, invoke it before ->open(), abort
> > and return if any errors signaled.
> >
> > etherdev init hooks up a function that does the above
> > check, which allows us to avoid editing every ethernet
> > driver
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Seems sane to me. Something like this (attached)?
Looks great:
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists