[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <823fdfe2-7c8c-4440-bc6a-3896c542f0e4@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 08:48:28 -0800
From: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Alan Brady
<alan.brady@...el.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "David S.
Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Jakub
Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v1 1/2] igb: simplify pci ops declaration
On 2/19/2024 1:15 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 02:01:08PM -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
>> The igb driver was pre-declaring tons of functions just so that it could
>> have an early declaration of the pci_driver struct.
>>
>> Delete a bunch of the declarations and move the struct to the bottom of the
>> file, after all the functions are declared.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
>> - .probe = igb_probe,
>> - .remove = igb_remove,
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
>> - .driver.pm = &igb_pm_ops,
>> -#endif
>> - .shutdown = igb_shutdown,
>> + .probe = igb_probe,
>> + .remove = igb_remove,
>> + .driver.pm = &igb_pm_ops,
>
> Hi Jesse,
>
> the line above causes a build failure if CONFIG_PM is not set.
Hi Simon, thanks!
Yeah I missed that, but do we care since patch 2/2 then fixes it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists