On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:27:16AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 09:50 Fri 28 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 04:28:21AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > HI, > > > > > > The patch is next > > > net/eth: fix link handling > > > > > > was NEVER send to the ML > > > > > > IIRC I was the author of the first version and this disapear > > > > > > Uwe and I just get this discussion on the kernel ML about patch update > > > > > > > I was basically pissed off because I got the strong feeling that I spent > > more time reviewing and testing the patch than you initially spent > > writing it in the first place. The second version still stored apples > > in edev->phydev->link and bananas in edev->carrier, but still did a > > edev->carrier = dev->link. > I did this on purpose as I do want to store the link and later export it via > env as I get a patch here for 2 wifi driver where I'll not use the phylib > > so store the carrier is the correct way Whatever it is, adding a variable to an ethernet device and then manipulating it in both the phylib and the ethernet code is desastrous. It must be clear everytime who owns a variable. Doing a eth_current->carrier = CARRIER_UNKNOW; in the ethernet code, and then: edev->carrier = dev->link; in the phy code is a recipe for spaghetti code. Sascha (Who loves spaghetti - on his plate) -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
