[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <472A1F5B.9060401@garzik.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:47:55 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davej@...hat.com, ajax@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes
Kok, Auke wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>> 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>
>
> I like it.
>
> Should I start sending patches to remove the checks from e1000/e1000e/ixgb/ixgbe
> already (to David, I assume?)?
Send the patches to me like normal...
Jeff
-
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