On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:57 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 5/8/17 1:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Johannes Berg
>> Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 10:55:12 +0200
>>
>>>
+static inline bool netif_is_lwd(struct net_device *dev)
+{
+ return !!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_LWT_NETDEV);
+}
>>
On 5/8/17 1:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg
> Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 10:55:12 +0200
>
>>
>>> +static inline bool netif_is_lwd(struct net_device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + return !!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_LWT_NETDEV);
>>> +}
>>
>> Am I the only one who thinks that this "LWT_NETDEV" vs "L
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg
> Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 10:55:12 +0200
>
>>
>>> +static inline bool netif_is_lwd(struct net_device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> +return !!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_LWT_NETDEV);
>>> +}
>>
>> Am I the only one who thinks that this "LWT
From: Johannes Berg
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 10:55:12 +0200
>
>> +static inline bool netif_is_lwd(struct net_device *dev)
>> +{
>> +return !!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_LWT_NETDEV);
>> +}
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that this "LWT_NETDEV" vs "LWD" is a bit
> confusing?
Agreed, my old eyes ca
> +static inline bool netif_is_lwd(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> + return !!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_LWT_NETDEV);
> +}
Am I the only one who thinks that this "LWT_NETDEV" vs "LWD" is a bit
confusing?
Is "netif_is_lwt_netdev()" really too long?
johannes
Add new flag to denote lightweight netdevices. Add helper to identify
such devices.
Signed-off-by: David Ahern
---
include/linux/netdevice.h | 7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
index f47c8712398a..08151fd34973 100644
--
