Hi Florian,
Florian Fainelli writes:
>> -if (dsa_slave_dev_check(dev))
>> -return dsa_slave_port_event(dev, event, ptr);
>> +if (dev->netdev_ops != _slave_netdev_ops)
>> +return NOTIFY_DONE;
>
> Why not keep the dsa_slave_dev_check() here?
Hi Florian,
Florian Fainelli writes:
>> -if (dsa_slave_dev_check(dev))
>> -return dsa_slave_port_event(dev, event, ptr);
>> +if (dev->netdev_ops != _slave_netdev_ops)
>> +return NOTIFY_DONE;
>
> Why not keep the dsa_slave_dev_check() here?
I dropped it because
On 02/03/2017 10:20 AM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Simplify the code handling the slave netdevice notifier call by
> providing a dsa_slave_changeupper helper for NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, and so
> on (only this event is supported at the moment.)
>
> Return NOTIFY_DONE when we did not care about an
On 02/03/2017 10:20 AM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Simplify the code handling the slave netdevice notifier call by
> providing a dsa_slave_changeupper helper for NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, and so
> on (only this event is supported at the moment.)
>
> Return NOTIFY_DONE when we did not care about an
Simplify the code handling the slave netdevice notifier call by
providing a dsa_slave_changeupper helper for NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, and so
on (only this event is supported at the moment.)
Return NOTIFY_DONE when we did not care about an event, and NOTIFY_OK
when we were concerned but no error
Simplify the code handling the slave netdevice notifier call by
providing a dsa_slave_changeupper helper for NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, and so
on (only this event is supported at the moment.)
Return NOTIFY_DONE when we did not care about an event, and NOTIFY_OK
when we were concerned but no error
6 matches
Mail list logo