Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
David Miller wrote: > From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:01:38 +0200 > > >>rae l wrote: >> >>>All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed >>>anymore. >> >>Agreed. But dev.c is growing larger and larger, maybe dev_addr.c? >>Or dev_config.c, with some of the other device configuration functions? > > > I don't know, a sizable dev.c is inevitable, allows better refactoring > and consolidation. And the be honest you're going to have to likely > touch things in dev.c whenever you make changes to dev_addr.c or > whatever you want to name it. :-) You're probably right. Killing dev_mcast.c makes sense to me though. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:01:38 +0200 > rae l wrote: > > All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed > > anymore. > > Agreed. But dev.c is growing larger and larger, maybe dev_addr.c? > Or dev_config.c, with some of the other device configuration functions? I don't know, a sizable dev.c is inevitable, allows better refactoring and consolidation. And the be honest you're going to have to likely touch things in dev.c whenever you make changes to dev_addr.c or whatever you want to name it. :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
From: "rae l" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:59:52 +0800 > And then the dev_mcast.c is now only 256 lines long(versus dev.c 4052 lines), > just left a few multicast related functions definition and "dev_mcast" > procfs code, > I have an idea to merge all code dev_mcast.c into dev.c, that would: > > - remove two functions (__dev_addr_delete, __dev_set_rx_mode) from > netdevice.h, > and then tag them static, > those two are also defined in dev.c and only called from dev_mcast.c, > > - reducing one file would benefit the compilation process. > > All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed anymore. Agreed. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
rae l wrote: > All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed > anymore. Agreed. But dev.c is growing larger and larger, maybe dev_addr.c? Or dev_config.c, with some of the other device configuration functions? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
On 7/18/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Denis Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:41:03 +0800 > Because this function is only called by unregister_netdevice, > this moving could make this non-global function static, > and also remove its declaration in netdevice.h; > > Any further, function __dev_addr_discard is also just called by > dev_mc_discard and dev_unicast_discard, keeping this two functions > both in one c file could make __dev_addr_discard also static > and remove its declaration in netdevice.h; > > Futhermore, the sequential call to dev_unicast_discard and then > dev_mc_discard in unregister_netdevice have a similar mechanism that: > (netif_tx_lock_bh / __dev_addr_discard / netif_tx_unlock_bh), > they should merged into one to eliminate duplicates in acquiring and > releasing the dev->_xmit_lock, this would be done in my following patch. > > Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Patch applied, thanks. Thanks for applying, too. And then the dev_mcast.c is now only 256 lines long(versus dev.c 4052 lines), just left a few multicast related functions definition and "dev_mcast" procfs code, I have an idea to merge all code dev_mcast.c into dev.c, that would: - remove two functions (__dev_addr_delete, __dev_set_rx_mode) from netdevice.h, and then tag them static, those two are also defined in dev.c and only called from dev_mcast.c, - reducing one file would benefit the compilation process. All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed anymore. -- Denis Cheng Linux Application Developer "One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code." - Ken Thompson. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
From: Denis Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:41:03 +0800 > Because this function is only called by unregister_netdevice, > this moving could make this non-global function static, > and also remove its declaration in netdevice.h; > > Any further, function __dev_addr_discard is also just called by > dev_mc_discard and dev_unicast_discard, keeping this two functions > both in one c file could make __dev_addr_discard also static > and remove its declaration in netdevice.h; > > Futhermore, the sequential call to dev_unicast_discard and then > dev_mc_discard in unregister_netdevice have a similar mechanism that: > (netif_tx_lock_bh / __dev_addr_discard / netif_tx_unlock_bh), > they should merged into one to eliminate duplicates in acquiring and > releasing the dev->_xmit_lock, this would be done in my following patch. > > Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Patch applied, thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
From: Denis Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:41:03 +0800 Because this function is only called by unregister_netdevice, this moving could make this non-global function static, and also remove its declaration in netdevice.h; Any further, function __dev_addr_discard is also just called by dev_mc_discard and dev_unicast_discard, keeping this two functions both in one c file could make __dev_addr_discard also static and remove its declaration in netdevice.h; Futhermore, the sequential call to dev_unicast_discard and then dev_mc_discard in unregister_netdevice have a similar mechanism that: (netif_tx_lock_bh / __dev_addr_discard / netif_tx_unlock_bh), they should merged into one to eliminate duplicates in acquiring and releasing the dev-_xmit_lock, this would be done in my following patch. Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patch applied, thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
On 7/18/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Denis Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:41:03 +0800 Because this function is only called by unregister_netdevice, this moving could make this non-global function static, and also remove its declaration in netdevice.h; Any further, function __dev_addr_discard is also just called by dev_mc_discard and dev_unicast_discard, keeping this two functions both in one c file could make __dev_addr_discard also static and remove its declaration in netdevice.h; Futhermore, the sequential call to dev_unicast_discard and then dev_mc_discard in unregister_netdevice have a similar mechanism that: (netif_tx_lock_bh / __dev_addr_discard / netif_tx_unlock_bh), they should merged into one to eliminate duplicates in acquiring and releasing the dev-_xmit_lock, this would be done in my following patch. Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patch applied, thanks. Thanks for applying, too. And then the dev_mcast.c is now only 256 lines long(versus dev.c 4052 lines), just left a few multicast related functions definition and dev_mcast procfs code, I have an idea to merge all code dev_mcast.c into dev.c, that would: - remove two functions (__dev_addr_delete, __dev_set_rx_mode) from netdevice.h, and then tag them static, those two are also defined in dev.c and only called from dev_mcast.c, - reducing one file would benefit the compilation process. All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed anymore. -- Denis Cheng Linux Application Developer One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code. - Ken Thompson. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
rae l wrote: All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed anymore. Agreed. But dev.c is growing larger and larger, maybe dev_addr.c? Or dev_config.c, with some of the other device configuration functions? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
From: rae l [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:59:52 +0800 And then the dev_mcast.c is now only 256 lines long(versus dev.c 4052 lines), just left a few multicast related functions definition and dev_mcast procfs code, I have an idea to merge all code dev_mcast.c into dev.c, that would: - remove two functions (__dev_addr_delete, __dev_set_rx_mode) from netdevice.h, and then tag them static, those two are also defined in dev.c and only called from dev_mcast.c, - reducing one file would benefit the compilation process. All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed anymore. Agreed. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:01:38 +0200 rae l wrote: All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed anymore. Agreed. But dev.c is growing larger and larger, maybe dev_addr.c? Or dev_config.c, with some of the other device configuration functions? I don't know, a sizable dev.c is inevitable, allows better refactoring and consolidation. And the be honest you're going to have to likely touch things in dev.c whenever you make changes to dev_addr.c or whatever you want to name it. :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
David Miller wrote: From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:01:38 +0200 rae l wrote: All in one word, I don't think the single file dev_mcast.c is needed anymore. Agreed. But dev.c is growing larger and larger, maybe dev_addr.c? Or dev_config.c, with some of the other device configuration functions? I don't know, a sizable dev.c is inevitable, allows better refactoring and consolidation. And the be honest you're going to have to likely touch things in dev.c whenever you make changes to dev_addr.c or whatever you want to name it. :-) You're probably right. Killing dev_mcast.c makes sense to me though. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
Because this function is only called by unregister_netdevice,
this moving could make this non-global function static,
and also remove its declaration in netdevice.h;
Any further, function __dev_addr_discard is also just called by
dev_mc_discard and dev_unicast_discard, keeping this two functions
both in one c file could make __dev_addr_discard also static
and remove its declaration in netdevice.h;
Futhermore, the sequential call to dev_unicast_discard and then
dev_mc_discard in unregister_netdevice have a similar mechanism that:
(netif_tx_lock_bh / __dev_addr_discard / netif_tx_unlock_bh),
they should merged into one to eliminate duplicates in acquiring and
releasing the dev->_xmit_lock, this would be done in my following patch.
Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/netdevice.h |2 --
net/core/dev.c| 14 +-
net/core/dev_mcast.c | 12
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
index da7a13c..9820ca1 100644
--- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
+++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
@@ -1098,10 +1098,8 @@ extern int dev_mc_delete(struct net_device
*dev, void *addr, int alen, int all
extern int dev_mc_add(struct net_device *dev, void *addr, int
alen, int newonly);
extern int dev_mc_sync(struct net_device *to, struct net_device
*from);
extern voiddev_mc_unsync(struct net_device *to, struct net_device
*from);
-extern voiddev_mc_discard(struct net_device *dev);
extern int __dev_addr_delete(struct dev_addr_list **list, int
*count, void *addr, int alen, int all);
extern int __dev_addr_add(struct dev_addr_list **list, int *count,
void *addr, int alen, int newonly);
-extern void__dev_addr_discard(struct dev_addr_list **list);
extern voiddev_set_promiscuity(struct net_device *dev, int inc);
extern voiddev_set_allmulti(struct net_device *dev, int inc);
extern voidnetdev_state_change(struct net_device *dev);
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 13a0d9f..3ba63aa 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -2715,7 +2715,7 @@ int __dev_addr_add(struct dev_addr_list **list, int
*count,
return 0;
}
-void __dev_addr_discard(struct dev_addr_list **list)
+static void __dev_addr_discard(struct dev_addr_list **list)
{
struct dev_addr_list *tmp;
@@ -2785,6 +2785,18 @@ static void dev_unicast_discard(struct net_device *dev)
netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev);
}
+/*
+ * Discard multicast list when a device is downed
+ */
+
+static void dev_mc_discard(struct net_device *dev)
+{
+ netif_tx_lock_bh(dev);
+ __dev_addr_discard(>mc_list);
+ dev->mc_count = 0;
+ netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev);
+}
+
unsigned dev_get_flags(const struct net_device *dev)
{
unsigned flags;
diff --git a/net/core/dev_mcast.c b/net/core/dev_mcast.c
index 235a2a8..99aece1 100644
--- a/net/core/dev_mcast.c
+++ b/net/core/dev_mcast.c
@@ -177,18 +177,6 @@ void dev_mc_unsync(struct net_device *to, struct
net_device *from)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_mc_unsync);
-/*
- * Discard multicast list when a device is downed
- */
-
-void dev_mc_discard(struct net_device *dev)
-{
- netif_tx_lock_bh(dev);
- __dev_addr_discard(>mc_list);
- dev->mc_count = 0;
- netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev);
-}
-
#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
static void *dev_mc_seq_start(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t *pos)
{
--
1.5.2.2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 1/3] [net/core] move dev_mc_discard from dev_mcast.c to dev.c
Because this function is only called by unregister_netdevice,
this moving could make this non-global function static,
and also remove its declaration in netdevice.h;
Any further, function __dev_addr_discard is also just called by
dev_mc_discard and dev_unicast_discard, keeping this two functions
both in one c file could make __dev_addr_discard also static
and remove its declaration in netdevice.h;
Futhermore, the sequential call to dev_unicast_discard and then
dev_mc_discard in unregister_netdevice have a similar mechanism that:
(netif_tx_lock_bh / __dev_addr_discard / netif_tx_unlock_bh),
they should merged into one to eliminate duplicates in acquiring and
releasing the dev-_xmit_lock, this would be done in my following patch.
Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/netdevice.h |2 --
net/core/dev.c| 14 +-
net/core/dev_mcast.c | 12
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
index da7a13c..9820ca1 100644
--- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
+++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
@@ -1098,10 +1098,8 @@ extern int dev_mc_delete(struct net_device
*dev, void *addr, int alen, int all
extern int dev_mc_add(struct net_device *dev, void *addr, int
alen, int newonly);
extern int dev_mc_sync(struct net_device *to, struct net_device
*from);
extern voiddev_mc_unsync(struct net_device *to, struct net_device
*from);
-extern voiddev_mc_discard(struct net_device *dev);
extern int __dev_addr_delete(struct dev_addr_list **list, int
*count, void *addr, int alen, int all);
extern int __dev_addr_add(struct dev_addr_list **list, int *count,
void *addr, int alen, int newonly);
-extern void__dev_addr_discard(struct dev_addr_list **list);
extern voiddev_set_promiscuity(struct net_device *dev, int inc);
extern voiddev_set_allmulti(struct net_device *dev, int inc);
extern voidnetdev_state_change(struct net_device *dev);
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 13a0d9f..3ba63aa 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -2715,7 +2715,7 @@ int __dev_addr_add(struct dev_addr_list **list, int
*count,
return 0;
}
-void __dev_addr_discard(struct dev_addr_list **list)
+static void __dev_addr_discard(struct dev_addr_list **list)
{
struct dev_addr_list *tmp;
@@ -2785,6 +2785,18 @@ static void dev_unicast_discard(struct net_device *dev)
netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev);
}
+/*
+ * Discard multicast list when a device is downed
+ */
+
+static void dev_mc_discard(struct net_device *dev)
+{
+ netif_tx_lock_bh(dev);
+ __dev_addr_discard(dev-mc_list);
+ dev-mc_count = 0;
+ netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev);
+}
+
unsigned dev_get_flags(const struct net_device *dev)
{
unsigned flags;
diff --git a/net/core/dev_mcast.c b/net/core/dev_mcast.c
index 235a2a8..99aece1 100644
--- a/net/core/dev_mcast.c
+++ b/net/core/dev_mcast.c
@@ -177,18 +177,6 @@ void dev_mc_unsync(struct net_device *to, struct
net_device *from)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_mc_unsync);
-/*
- * Discard multicast list when a device is downed
- */
-
-void dev_mc_discard(struct net_device *dev)
-{
- netif_tx_lock_bh(dev);
- __dev_addr_discard(dev-mc_list);
- dev-mc_count = 0;
- netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev);
-}
-
#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
static void *dev_mc_seq_start(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t *pos)
{
--
1.5.2.2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
