[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130107112012.GE6931@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 12:20:12 +0100
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH repost] net,wireless: check against default_ethtool_ops
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 12:11:08PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:44:14AM CET, sgruszka@...hat.com wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:23:07AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >-static const struct ethtool_ops default_ethtool_ops;
> >> >+const struct ethtool_ops default_ethtool_ops;
> >> >+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(default_ethtool_ops);
> >>
> >> I think that default_ethtool_ops should stay static. Wouldn't it be
> >> nicer to introduce a helper like:
> >>
> >> bool dev_has_default_ethtool_ops(struct net_device *dev)
> >> {
> >> return dev->ethtool_ops == &default_ethtool_ops;
> >> }
> >
> >Then I still have to export this function. So with your approch, number
> >of exported symbols will be the same, but there will be few more lines
> >of code.
>
> I think it's always better to add few more lines in order to prevent possible
> confusion which exporting default_ethtool_ops might introduce...
What possible confusion it might cause?
Stanislaw
--
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