On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:21:42 -0800 "Zou, Yi" <yi.zou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:49:49 -0700 > >>Yi Zou <yi.zou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> This adds a "struct net_fcoe_ops *fcoe_ops" to net_device struct so > >>any > >>> network adapter driver can provide Fiber Channle over Ethernet (FCoE) > >>offload > >>> support through net_device. The fcoe_ops is only available when FCoE > >>is > >>> enabled in kernel as built-in or module driver. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Yi Zou <yi.zou@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>Rather than adding another _ops structure please add to existing > >>netdevice_ops. You don't need the flags that way. If netdevice_ops > >>has fcoe_setup, then device can do it... > >The comments in struct net_device_ops says for management hooks, if > >that's an ok place for net_fcoe_ops, then, I am all for it. > > > >Thanks. > > > >yi > > Hi, Stephen, > Regarding your comment about adding net_fcoe_ops to net_device_ops, > the net_fcoe_ops contains function pointers ad well as data members, > where net_device_ops seems to me is the placeholder only for function > pointers. So I think it is still better to still leave > the net_fcoe_ops to net_device. Let me know what you think. > > Thanks, > yi Data members go in net_device (because they are per device instance). Put fcoe stuff in net_device_ops. Ideally, it should look like TSO and GRO; with standard ethtool type config? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
