Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> However, in >> drivers/net/wan/hdlc_cisco.c, in function static int cisco_ioctl(struct >> net_device *dev, struct ifreq *ifr), where dev->hard_header is assigned a >> valid >> function, and dev->hard_header_cache is assigned a known value (NULL), dev- >> >header_cache_update is not set to a known value:
Right, it seems I was never aware of dev->header_cache_update existence. I wonder where does the non-NULL value come from? Nevermind. > diff -puN > drivers/net/wan/hdlc_cisco.c~cisco_ioctl-initialise-header_cache_update > drivers/net/wan/hdlc_cisco.c > --- a/drivers/net/wan/hdlc_cisco.c~cisco_ioctl-initialise-header_cache_update > +++ a/drivers/net/wan/hdlc_cisco.c > @@ -366,6 +366,7 @@ static int cisco_ioctl(struct net_device > dev->hard_start_xmit = hdlc->xmit; > dev->hard_header = cisco_hard_header; > dev->hard_header_cache = NULL; > + dev->header_cache_update = NULL; > dev->type = ARPHRD_CISCO; > dev->flags = IFF_POINTOPOINT | IFF_NOARP; > dev->addr_len = 0; > _ ACK, I think it's the best place. Is it OK to leave this (and hard_header_cache) set to random value if dev->hard_header = NULL (as with other protocols)? -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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
