[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <472A2989.2060603@garzik.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:31:21 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> How about:
>
> static int eth_validate_addr(const struct net_device *dev)
> {
> return is_valid_ether_addr(dev->dev_addr) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> }
hmmm -- its a slow path, so I don't see the value of marking the
argument 'const' -- right now this implementation merely reads the
dev->dev_addr[], but that need not always be the case.
And I don't see the value of squashing everything onto one line, IMO the
current version is more readable.
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