Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:32:51PM CEST, vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com wrote: >Hi David, > >On Oct. Thursday 08 (41) 05:28 AM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> >> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:48:25 -0400 >> >> > The first 3 patches removes the dsa.h include from linux/netdevice.h, which >> > broke the inclusion of switchdev.h in dsa.h. >> >> I still don't agree with bloating up struct netdevice just to deal with >> an include file ordering issue, sorry. > >Yes, I just saw your reply on the first version. I will resend the >patchset with the forward declarations instead. > >But looking at the issue that Jiri and the kbuild bot pointed out >earlier in the thread, we must agree that having the DSA header in >netdevice.h is wrong. > >There are 2 points to note here: > >* checking a "rcv" member of a DSA-specific structure to anwser the > question "does this interface uses hardware-inserted tag?" is not > generic and not robust at all. > >* the "dsa_ptr" of net_device is just used to access the dsa_switch_tree > from DSA packet_type receive functions. There must be another way to > pass it, maybe from a netdev_priv or the packet_type->af_packet_priv?
I sent previously patch for this: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/336940/ So now my patch would have another user :) Vivien, I will refresh the patch and send it to you, the you can use the priv by dsa and send my patch along with your patchset. How does that sound? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
