Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] drivers/net/usb: Add new driver ipheth
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
To: "\"L. Alberto" =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gim=E9nez=22?= <agimenez@sysvalve.es>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, oliver@neukum.org, linville@tuxdriver.com,
       j.dumon@option.com, steve.glendinning@smsc.com, davem@davemloft.net,
       gregkh@suse.de, dgiagio@gmail.com, dborca@yahoo.com
In-Reply-To: <4BB62620.3070807@sysvalve.es>
References: <1269984864-28159-1-git-send-email-agimenez@sysvalve.es>
	 <1270064527-8485-1-git-send-email-agimenez@sysvalve.es>
	 <1270077538.8653.484.camel@localhost>  <4BB62620.3070807@sysvalve.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Organization: Solarflare Communications
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 18:21:23 +0100
Message-ID: <1270228883.12516.140.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2540
Lines: 74

On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 19:15 +0200, "L. Alberto Giménez" wrote:
> On 04/01/2010 01:18 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 21:42 +0200, L. Alberto Giménez wrote:
> > [...]
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/usb/ipheth.c
> > [...]
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Upstream has fixed several errors pointed out by you and Oliver (thanks
> for that), but some of them are still pending.
> 
> I will send patches on top of my last driver submission (if the proper
> way would be resubmit the whole code, please tell me. Anyway I need to
> clarify some doubts...

Since David Miller has not merged your original patch, you should send a
single new patch with the changes incorporated.

> >> +	usb_fill_bulk_urb(dev->tx_urb, udev,
> >> +			  usb_sndbulkpipe(udev, dev->bulk_out),
> >> +			  dev->tx_buf, IPHETH_BUF_SIZE,
> >> +			  ipheth_sndbulk_callback,
> >> +			  dev);
> >> +	dev->tx_urb->transfer_flags |= URB_NO_TRANSFER_DMA_MAP;
> >> +
> >> +	retval = usb_submit_urb(dev->tx_urb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> >> +	if (retval) {
> >> +		err("%s: usb_submit_urb: %d", __func__, retval);
> >> +		dev->stats.tx_errors++;
> >> +		dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb);
> >> +	} else {
> >> +		net->trans_start = jiffies;
> > 
> > No longer needed.
> 
> What is not longer needed? The assignment, the whole "else" branch? If
> the assignment is what is not needed, can I just remove that line, right?

The assignment is not needed.

> > [...]
> >> +#ifdef HAVE_NET_DEVICE_OPS
> >> +static const struct net_device_ops ipheth_netdev_ops = {
> >> +       .ndo_open = &ipheth_open,
> >> +       .ndo_stop = &ipheth_close,
> >> +       .ndo_start_xmit = &ipheth_tx,
> >> +       .ndo_tx_timeout = &ipheth_tx_timeout,
> >> +       .ndo_get_stats = &ipheth_stats,
> >> +};
> >> +#endif
> > 
> > Remove the #ifdef, there is no question whether we have net_device_ops.
> 
> Ok, I will just remove both #ifdefs, but why is that? Maybe in previous
> versions of the kernel the net_device_ops struct was introduced and now
> it's present no matter how you configure your kernel?
[...]

Correct, it is now mandatory.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
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/