On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 09:42:14AM -0500, Jon Wetzel wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:56:05PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > Jon, you should probably add a patch (or redo you current patch) > > and use MAX_ADDR_LEN instead of adding the new ETH_MAX_ADDR_LEN... > > I wanted to do this initially, but MAX_ADDR_LEN is declared in > net device, and ethtool.h doesn't include it. So, instead of > creating a new dependency, I added a new constant. I wonder how many files include ethtool.h w/o including netdevice.h...? Anyway, why not just include netdevice.h at the top of ethtool.h? Lots of other header files do it e.g. ethdevice.h, inetdevice.h, if_arp.h, if_bridge.h, if_vlan.h, ip.h, neighbour.h, sock.h, and many others... I've known coders who find including headers from other headers distasteful, but I find it far less distasteful than replicating definitions. :-) John -- John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
