On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 08:56:42 -0500
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > From: Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > [5/9] netconsole: Introduce dev_status member
> >
> > Introduce a new member in netconsole_target that tracks the status (up or
> > down) of the underlying interface network device that the specific logging
> > target netpoll is attached to.
> >
> > We then join this up with the just-introduced net_device notifier, and
> > introduce NETDEV_UP and NETDEV_DOWN notifications. By disabling the target
> > when the corresponding local interface is down, we save the overhead of
> > unnecessarily disabling interrupts and calling into the netpoll stack in
> > console->write().
>
> Yuck.
>
> > +/*
> > + * Why no net_dev_is_up() in netdevice.h? The kernel could lose a lot of
> > + * weight if only netdevice.h had the good sense to export such a function.
> > + * Oh well ...
> > + */
> > +static inline int net_dev_is_up(struct net_device *net_dev)
> > +{
> > + return ((net_dev->flags & IFF_UP) == IFF_UP);
> > +}
>
> Why editorialize? Why not just add this to netdevice.h?
>
> > + if (nt->dev_status) {
>
> Why not simply call net_dev_is_up?
The flags field values are really BSD legacy-ish stuff and should not be
used internally. IFF_UP etc, do not have the necessary atomic properties.
Use netif_running() instead.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
