Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes

[Jeff Garzik]

Kok, Auke wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:20:30 -0400
> >
> > > David Miller wrote:
> > > > From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:03:36 -0400
> > > >
> > > > > I'm wondering if there is a way to avoid adding
> > > > >
> > > > > 	if (!is_valid_ether_addr(dev->dev_addr))
> > > > > 		return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > to every ethernet driver's ->open() hook.
> > > > The first idea I get is:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Create netdev->validate_dev_addr().
> > > >
> > > > 2) If it exists, invoke it before ->open(), abort
> > > >    and return if any errors signaled.
> > > >
> > > > etherdev init hooks up a function that does the above
> > > > check, which allows us to avoid editing every ethernet
> > > > driver
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > Seems sane to me.  Something like this (attached)?
> > Looks great:
> >
> > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I like it.
>
> Should I start sending patches to remove the checks from e1000/e1000e/ixgb/ixgbe
> already (to David, I assume?)?

Send the patches to me like normal...

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/