>
> >>
> >> > @@ -1562,10 +1562,11 @@ static void ace_watchdog(struct net_device
> >> > *data, unsigned int txqueue)
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -static void ace_tasklet(unsigned long arg)
> >> > +static void ace_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t)
> >> > {
> >> > - struct net_device *dev = (struct net_device *) arg;
> >> > - struct ace_private *ap = netdev_priv(dev);
> >> > + struct ace_private *ap = from_tasklet(ap, t, ace_tasklet);
> >> > + struct net_device *dev = (struct net_device *)((char *)ap -
> >> > + ALIGN(sizeof(struct net_device),
> >> > NETDEV_ALIGN));
> >> > int cur_size;
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't see this is as an improvement. The 'dev' assignment looks so
> >> incredibly fragile and exposes so many internal details about netdev
> >> object allocation, alignment, and layout.
> >>
> >> Who is going to find and fix this if someone changes how netdev object
> >> allocation works?
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for pointing it out. I'll see if I can fix it to keep it simple.
>
> Just add a backpointer to the netdev from the netdev_priv() if you
> absolutely have too.
>
Okay.
> >> I don't want to apply this, it sets a very bad precedent. The existing
> >> code is so much cleaner and easier to understand and audit.
> >
> > Will you pick the rest of the patches or would they have to wait till
> > this one is
> > fixed.
>
> I never pick up a partial series, ever. So yes you will have to fix these
> two patches up and resubmit the entire thing.
>
Sure, let me get these fixed up and ready. Thanks.
--
- Allen
