From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 23:53:51 +0300 > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:02:01PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote: >> >> Since you #define SPEED_UNKNOWN to -1 (below), how does this >> actually change anything? Did you mean 0xffff (because struct >> ethtool_cmd's speed is a u16)? >> > > Sorry I could have explained this better in the changelog. The > slave->speed is stored in a u32 and the -1 works fine as is. > Obviously, as you point out the define doesn't change anything. I > just changed it so it would look symetric with DUPLEX_UNKNOWN. > > But I think you missed that I defined #define DUPLEX_UNKNOWN 0xff. > Before it we used a -1 for both and that didn't work. > > I can resend this with a note about the SPEED_UNKNOWN cleanup if > you'd like. I'll do that tomorrow or Sunday. That won't be necessary, I'll apply your patch as-is. Thanks Dan. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
