[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090320.004841.194259369.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: yanghy@...fujitsu.com
Cc: shemminger@...tta.com, chas@....nrl.navy.mil,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atm: lec use dev_change_mtu
From: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:45:20 +0800
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Rather than calling device pointer directly (which is incorrect with
> > net_device_ops), use the standard dev_change_mtu. Compile tested only.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> >
> > --- a/net/atm/lec.c 2009-03-19 17:18:35.140652628 -0700
> > +++ b/net/atm/lec.c 2009-03-19 17:19:19.500777355 -0700
> > @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ static int lec_atm_send(struct atm_vcc *
> > priv->lane2_ops = NULL;
> > if (priv->lane_version > 1)
> > priv->lane2_ops = &lane2_ops;
> > - if (dev->change_mtu(dev, mesg->content.config.mtu))
> > + if (dev_set_mtu(dev, mesg->content.config.mtu))
>
> I think it's not correct.This dev->change_mtu is:
> 663 static int lec_change_mtu(struct net_device *dev, int new_mtu)
> 664 {
> 665 if ((new_mtu < 68) || (new_mtu > 18190))
> 666 return -EINVAL;
> 667 dev->mtu = new_mtu;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^maybe should use dev_set_mtu() here.
> 668 return 0;
> 669 }
>
> and it's not quite same as dev_set_mtu.
dev_set_mtu() calls netdev->ops->ndo_set_mtu() so it will call
this function you are quoting.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists