From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:35:25 +0200 > Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:30:46AM CEST, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>It therefore probably makes sense to add a boolean arg which when true >>elides the netif_running() check then fixup and audit every caller. > > I was thinking about this. Maybe probably __eth_mac_addr() which does > not have netif_running() check and eth_mac_addr() calling > netif_running() check and __eth_mac_addr() after that. > > What do you think? Yes, sounds good. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
