Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 14 May 2001 16:34:02 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: NETDEV_CHANGE events when __LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER is modified |
| |
kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote: > > Each bus should > > Not all the device are bound to some "bus".
True. Each driver author would make a decision, for what's best to appear in their probe time printk's...
> > Are you talking about his 140k patch? > > Yes! > > Size of patch and "simplicity" are orthogonal things. > It was simple like potatoe.
It was simple for existing code, I agree, but IMHO not correct WRT the dev->name error case mentioned earlier, and also different from the rest of the kernel driver APIs.
> > I think a key point of my patch is that drivers now follow the method of > > other kernel drivers: perform all setup necessary, and then register the > > device in a single operation. > > Nice. I agreed. I talk about other thing: after applying Andrew's patch > I saw good correct code. After you will fix all the devices, your patch will > be the same 140K or more due to killing refs t dev->name announced > to be illegal. 8)
true enough...
> > After register_foo(dev), all members of > > 'dev' are assumed to be filled in and ready for use. This is not the > > case ....................... using dev->init()... > > Sorry? Why?
Sorry -- I just rechecked the code, and I was mistaken. dev-init() is called earlier than I had thought..
> > Tangent - IMHO having register_netdev call dev->init is ugly and unusual > > compared to other driver APIs in the kernel. Your register function > > should not call out to driver functions, it should just register a new, > > already-set-up device in the subsystem and return. > > Provided you teach me some way to generate unique identifiers, different > of device names.
I don't understand your point here. init_etherdev and alloc_etherdev users get by just fine without dev->init(). My thought is that dev->init is not needed at all -- simply require initialization before register_netdev[ice] is called.
> > So you say a fatal bug remains in 2.4.5-pre1? If so please elaborate... > > Probably, I am looking into different code, but I found only 15 references > to new interface.
Please let me know what bugs you find in the vanilla kernel...
Regards,
Jeff
-- Jeff Garzik | Game called on account of naked chick Building 1024 | MandrakeSoft | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |