On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:02:00AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > On 12/05/2012 09:57 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > >Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >>net/core/dev.c now assigns a default ethtool ops, so > >>the net/wireless/core.c check for existing ops is always true > >>so the wireless ops would never be assigned. > >> > >>Simply remove the check for existing ops and always assign > >>the wireless ops. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>--- > >> net/wireless/core.c | 3 +-- > >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/net/wireless/core.c b/net/wireless/core.c > >>index 4e6fe62..6309699 100644 > >>--- a/net/wireless/core.c > >>+++ b/net/wireless/core.c > >>@@ -863,8 +863,7 @@ static int cfg80211_netdev_notifier_call(struct notifier_block *nb, > >> /* allow mac80211 to determine the timeout */ > >> wdev->ps_timeout = -1; > >> > >>- if (!dev->ethtool_ops) > >>- dev->ethtool_ops = &cfg80211_ethtool_ops; > >>+ dev->ethtool_ops = &cfg80211_ethtool_ops; > >> > >> if ((wdev->iftype == NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION || > >> wdev->iftype == NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_CLIENT || > > > > > >Won't this break drivers which for some reason have their own > >ethtool_ops? > > I guess it will. What a mess. > > Maybe we could assign individual method pointers in the ethtool_ops > struct if it already exists (and if those pointers are NULL)? We should probably assing ethtool_ops before wireless core will call alloc_netdev. Stanislaw -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
