On May 11, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Matvejchikov Ilya wrote:
2007/5/11, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On May 11, 2007, at 5:58 AM, Matvejchikov Ilya wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matvejchikov Ilya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> diff -purN linux-2.6.21-clean/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> linux-2.6.21/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> --- linux-2.6.21-clean/drivers/net/phy/phy.c 2007-04-26
> 07:08:32.000000000 +0400
> +++ linux-2.6.21/drivers/net/phy/phy.c 2007-05-04
> 08:22:01.000000000 +0400
> @@ -245,6 +245,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(phy_sanitize_settings);
> */
> int phy_ethtool_sset(struct phy_device *phydev, struct ethtool_cmd
> *cmd)
> {
> + if (unlikely(!phydev))
> + return -EINVAL;
Should this be -ENODEV?
If we get the ENODEV error, we are suppose that there is no device at
all. PHY device may not be connected to the NET device. But if it
exists we can't say that there is NODEV...
I think it should be -EINVAL.
Hmm, if the phy isn't connected to the NET device doesn't that mean
we don't have a PHY device (from the point of view of the netdevice),
thus NODEV?
Whatever we should cleanup the current users of phy_ethtool_sset/
phy_ethtool_gset.
> +
> if (cmd->phy_address != phydev->addr)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> @@ -289,6 +292,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(phy_ethtool_sset);
>
> int phy_ethtool_gset(struct phy_device *phydev, struct ethtool_cmd
> *cmd)
> {
> + if (unlikely(!phydev))
> + return -EINVAL;
same question.
The same answer :)
> +
> cmd->supported = phydev->supported;
>
> cmd->advertising = phydev->advertising;
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
netdev" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
