Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > David Miller wrote: >> From: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:19:21 +0100 >> >>> static netdev_tx_t vcan_tx(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev) >>> { >>> + struct can_frame *cf = (struct can_frame *)skb->data; >>> struct net_device_stats *stats = &dev->stats; >>> int loop; >>> >>> + if (unlikely(skb->len != sizeof(*cf) || cf->can_dlc > 8)) { >>> + kfree_skb(skb); >>> + stats->tx_dropped++; >>> + return NETDEV_TX_OK; >>> + } >>> + >> ... >>> +/* Drop a given socketbuffer if it does not contain a valid CAN frame. */ >>> +static inline int can_dropped_invalid_skb(struct net_device *dev, >>> + struct sk_buff *skb) >>> +{ >>> + const struct can_frame *cf = (struct can_frame *)skb->data; >>> + >>> + if (unlikely(skb->len != sizeof(*cf) || cf->can_dlc > 8)) { >>> + kfree_skb(skb); >>> + dev->stats.tx_dropped++; >>> + return 1; >>> + } >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> struct net_device *alloc_candev(int sizeof_priv, unsigned int >>> echo_skb_max); >> Why are you not using the new helper function in vcan_tx()? > > I just wanted the vcan driver keep off including "include/linux/can/dev.h" > which is intended for 'real' CAN hardware. > > As the vcan software devices do not need the bitrate-setting and skb echo > handling from the driver library for real CAN devices, this inline function > would be the only reason to include ".../dev.h" > > But i don't have a strong preference to do it like this. Do you think i > should change it to used the defined inline function?
Yes, for the sake of consistency. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
