Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20071023.192313.115635750.davem@davemloft.net>
To: jeff@garzik.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davej@redhat.com, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com,
       ajax@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <471EABEE.8030900@garzik.org>
References: <471E99E8.6030404@garzik.org>
	<20071023.180744.115914004.davem@davemloft.net>
	<471EABEE.8030900@garzik.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1071
Lines: 37

From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:20:30 -0400

> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
> > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:03:36 -0400
> > 
> >> I'm wondering if there is a way to avoid adding
> >>
> >> 	if (!is_valid_ether_addr(dev->dev_addr))
> >> 		return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> to every ethernet driver's ->open() hook.
> > 
> > The first idea I get is:
> > 
> > 1) Create netdev->validate_dev_addr().
> > 
> > 2) If it exists, invoke it before ->open(), abort
> >    and return if any errors signaled.
> > 
> > etherdev init hooks up a function that does the above
> > check, which allows us to avoid editing every ethernet
> > driver
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> Seems sane to me.  Something like this (attached)?

Looks great:

Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
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/