On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 08:50 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 11:27:39AM +0800, Wang Chen wrote: > > We have some reasons to kill netdev->priv: > > 1. netdev->priv is equal to netdev_priv(). > > 2. netdev_priv() wraps the calculation of netdev->priv's offset, obviously > > netdev_priv() is more flexible than netdev->priv. > > But we cann't kill netdev->priv, because so many drivers reference to it > > directly. > > > > OK, becasue Dave S. Miller said, "every direct netdev->priv usage is a bug", > > and I want to kill netdev->priv later, I decided to convert all the direct > > reference of netdev->priv first. > > > > Different to readonly reference of netdev->priv, in this driver, netdev->priv > > was changed. I use netdev->ml_priv to replace netdev->priv. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Chen <wangchen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thank you for your patch. However, I do not understand why you didn't > simply replace netdev->priv with netdev_priv()? Can you explain? Yeah, that would have been my first choice too... Dan -- 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
