On 3/7/20 6:13 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:12:48 +0100 > >> On 3/2/20 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:45:41 +0100 >>> >>>> I don't know yet whether it makes sense to have CAN bonding/team >>>> devices. But if so we would need some more investigation. For now >>>> disabling CAN interfaces for bonding/team devices seems to be >>>> reasonable. >>> >>> Every single interesting device that falls into a special use case >>> like CAN is going to be tempted to add a similar check. >>> >>> I don't want to set this precedence. >>> >>> Check that the devices you get passed are actually CAN devices, it's >>> easy, just compare the netdev_ops and make sure they equal the CAN >>> ones. >> >> Sorry, I'm not really sure how to implement this check. > > Like this: > > if (netdev->ops != &can_netdev_ops) > return; There is no single can_netdev_ops. The netdev_ops are per CAN-network driver. But the ml_priv is used in the generic CAN code. regards, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
