Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:04:16PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> This patch makes the private functions alloc_can_skb() and >> alloc_can_err_skb() of the at91_can driver public and adapts all >> drivers to use these. While making the patch I realized, that >> the skb's are *not* setup consistently. The skb's are now setup >> as shown: > [...] >> Please check and comment. >> >> Marc, feel free to add your signed-off-by here. >> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> >> --- >> kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 32 ------------------ >> kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/cc770/cc770.c | 13 +------ >> kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/dev.c | 38 >> ++++++++++++++++++++-- >> kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/esd_pci331.c | 14 +------- >> kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/mcp251x.c | 20 +---------- >> kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/mscan/mscan.c | 6 --- >> kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/sja1000/sja1000.c | 12 +----- >> kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/softing/softing_main.c | 8 +--- >> kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/usb/ems_usb.c | 16 +-------- >> kernel/2.6/include/socketcan/can/dev.h | 4 ++ >> 10 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-) >> > Wolfgang, > > I'm not yet totally up with include/socketcan & include/linux > seperation (which I don't like to question here). > I noticed you do patcgh include/socketcan/can/dev.h > but not include/linux/can/dev.h
Oliver, what was the reason to maintain a redundant include/linux/can/dev.h? > I guess you just forgot, or is there a reason? Yep, will fix. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
