ethtool: bring back missing comma in netdev_features_strings
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 ethtool: bring back missing comma in netdev_features_strings
Hi all,
I found this while skimming through recent net-next patches. I'm not quite sure if the padding in this struct is correct now.
Franco
Quoted 1 line
From
c62ca7bb87baad78e285dc0e698e792051d8fa87Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Franco Fichtner <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:49:08 +0200
Subject: [PATCH net-next] ethtool: bring back missing comma in netdev_features_strings
The issue was introduced in commit eed2a12f1ed9aabf.
--- net/core/ethtool.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
net/core/ethtool.c +1 -1
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static const char netdev_features_strings[ETHTOOL_DEV_FEATURE_WORDS * 32][ETH_GS/* NETIF_F_NTUPLE */ "rx-ntuple-filter" ,/* NETIF_F_RXHASH */ "rx-hashing" ,/* NETIF_F_RXCSUM */ "rx-checksum" , -/* NETIF_F_NOCACHE_COPY */ "tx-nocache-copy" +/* NETIF_F_NOCACHE_COPY */ "tx-nocache-copy" , /* NETIF_F_LOOPBACK */ "loopback", };
Signature · 1 line
1.7.3.2.493.g0b0cd
2011/5/12 Franco Fichtner <[email protected]>:
Quoted 2 lines
I found this while skimming through recent net-next patches. I'm not quite sure if the padding in this struct is correct now.
Nice catch. But please send the patch inline instead of as an attachment.
Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
Quoted 4 lines · Michał Mirosław
2011/5/12 Franco Fichtner <[email protected]>:
Quoted 2 lines
I found this while skimming through recent net-next patches. I'm not quite sure if the padding in this struct is correct now.
Nice catch. But please send the patch inline instead of as an attachment.
Thanks, but I have a short question. Are the empty strings in this struct really needed?
/* NETIF_F_TSO6 */ "tx-tcp6-segmentation",
/* NETIF_F_FSO */ "tx-fcoe-segmentation",
"",
"",
/* NETIF_F_FCOE_CRC */ "tx-checksum-fcoe-crc",They seem to have caused this mess in the first place and I would think they could be removed entirely.
I will resend the patch later today as inline. Sorry about that.
Franco
W dniu 12 maja 2011 11:13 użytkownik Franco Fichtner
Quoted 13 lines · <[email protected]> napisał:
Quoted 4 lines · Michał Mirosław
2011/5/12 Franco Fichtner <[email protected]>:
Quoted 2 lines
I found this while skimming through recent net-next patches. I'm not quite sure if the padding in this struct is correct now.
Nice catch. But please send the patch inline instead of as an attachment.
Thanks, but I have a short question. Are the empty strings in this struct really needed?
/*
NETIF_F_TSO6*/ "tx-tcp6-segmentation", /*NETIF_F_FSO*/ "tx-fcoe-segmentation", "",
"",
Quoted 4 lines
/*
NETIF_F_FCOE_CRC*/ "tx-checksum-fcoe-crc",They seem to have caused this mess in the first place and I would think they could be removed entirely.
Mahesh Bandewar tried to do some cleanup in how feature bits are defined using an enum, but it wasn't completed. If that cleanup was completed, this array could be initialized using C99 style:
[NETIF_F_TSO6_BIT] = "tx-tcp6-segmentation",
(This has more advantages than pure aesthetics.) For now those empty strings have to stay, as the array positions are relevant.
Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław