On Wed, 6 May 2020 08:39:47 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> wt., 5 maj 2020 o 19:31 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> >
> > On Tue, 5 May 2020 16:02:25 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Provide devm_register_netdev() - a device resource managed variant
> > > of register_netdev(). This new helper will only work for net_device
> > > structs that have a parent device assigned and are devres managed too.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > > index 522288177bbd..99db537c9468 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > > @@ -9519,6 +9519,54 @@ int register_netdev(struct net_device *dev)
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_netdev);
> > >
> > > +struct netdevice_devres {
> > > + struct net_device *ndev;
> > > +};
> >
> > Is there really a need to define a structure if we only need a pointer?
> >
>
> There is no need for that, but it really is more readable this way.
> Also: using a pointer directly doesn't save us any memory nor code
> here.
I don't care either way but devm_alloc_etherdev_mqs() and co. are using
the double pointer directly. Please make things consistent. Either do
the same, or define the structure in some header and convert other
helpers to also make use of it.
