[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZG748Wu7Wtcc1doj@nanopsycho>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 07:58:09 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, leon@...nel.org, saeedm@...dia.com,
moshe@...dia.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, tariqt@...dia.com, idosch@...dia.com,
petrm@...dia.com, simon.horman@...igine.com, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
habetsm.xilinx@...il.com, michal.wilczynski@...el.com,
jacob.e.keller@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 15/15] devlink: save devlink_port_ops into a
variable in devlink_port_function_validate()
Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:55:35AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Wed, 24 May 2023 14:18:36 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> + const struct devlink_port_ops *ops = devlink_port->ops;
>> struct nlattr *attr;
>>
>> if (tb[DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_HW_ADDR] &&
>> - (!devlink_port->ops || !devlink_port->ops->port_fn_hw_addr_set)) {
>> + (!ops || !ops->port_fn_hw_addr_set)) {
>
>I was kinda expected last patch will remove the !ops checks.
>Another series comes after this to convert more drivers?
Well, there are still drivers that don't use the port at all ops. I can
have them register with empty struct if you like, no strong opinition. I
can do that as follow-up (this set has 15 patches already anyway). Let
me know.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists