Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 01:52:49PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
This patch requirer the
"net-fix-compiler-error-on-dgrsc-when-config_pci.patch" (added to the
-mm tree after 2.6.15-rc1-mm2):
---
devel/drivers/net/dgrs.c~net-fix-compiler-error-on-dgrsc-when-config_pci
2005-11-19 18:00:34.000000000 -0800
+++ devel-akpm/drivers/net/dgrs.c 2005-11-19 18:00:34.000000000 -0800
@@ -1458,6 +1458,8 @@ static struct pci_driver dgrs_pci_driver
.probe = dgrs_pci_probe,
.remove = __devexit_p(dgrs_pci_remove),
};
+#else
+static struct pci_driver dgrs_pci_driver = {};
#endif
I don't see the point. We shouldn't have this structure at all
if CONFIG_PCI is not set.
Cheers,
Opps, misread your mail. Sorry.
But in that case, why shall we have any pci_*-function in the first
place when !CONFIG_PCI? As it was before, they were contained within
#ifdef CONFIG_PCI's.
You said your patch were easier to read, please elaborate. Yes, in the
dgrs_init_module() (no arguments there), but you introduces new
functions (who need to be checked out if you read the code for the first
time) and is really #ifdef's a good idea to change function behavior?
Isn't better to change the input? (I know, linux/pci.h does it, but at
least that is in a .h-file with inline functions containing at most
"return 0;").
Btw, you said Jeff should decide. Why not Rich Richardson who is the author?
Apologize for the ranting.
As I said before, thinking of deleting CONFIG_PCI's containing
pci_*-functions and if so, need a valid plan for it (because of the
pci_driver-struct). If there is any no-no in "my" way, please point it
out to spare me/you/lkml the patches. If not for this, I would've let
this rest and leave it to Jeff (or Rich ;) ).
cu,
Richard
-
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
