[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Q: netdevice interface change
Manfred wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> I have 2 questions about your 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:
> This is for 2.2-compatible drivers. They can do this:
> #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:
> #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
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.029 / U:2.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site