Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 24 Dec 2000 02:05:59 +1100 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Q: netdevice interface change |
| |
Manfred wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > I have 2 questions about your netdevice2.txt: > http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/netdevice2.txt > > * is withdraw_netdevice() really required, can't unregister_netdev > check "hidden", and notify the protocols/hotplug based on that value?
Yes, it's basically the same thing and yes, it could be done this way. The only difference is that withdraw_netdev() will blurt out a warning if it is called on an unhidden device. This is useful now, but less so later. I guess it could be #defined onto unregister_netdev later..
> * I don't like the backward compatibility section: > > <<<<<<<< > Other things: > > #define HAVE_PUBLISH_NETDEV > > This is for 2.2-compatible drivers. They can do this: > > #ifdef HAVE_PUBLISH_NETDEV > #define init_etherdev prepare_etherdev > #define publish_netdev(dev) do {} while (0) > #define withdraw_netdev unregister_netdev > #endif > >>>>>>>> > > As far as I know Linus prefers backward compatibility the other way > around: > > <<<<<< > A 2.4 driver that must remain compatible with 2.2 should use > the new interface and add these lines to their source file: > > #ifndef HAVE_PUBLISH_NETDEV > #define prepare_etherdev init_etherdev > #define publish_netdev(dev) do {} while (0) > #define withdraw_netdev unregister_netdev > #endif > >>>>>>
You are correct, and that is in fact how I did it in rrunner.c. I'll do eepro100 and acenic that way too. The manual is wrong :)
BTW: I just finished the ethernet devices, so my request for help can be ignored. Fixed a truckload of unchecked kmallocs and error-path memory leaks while I was at it. Sigh.
- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |