Randy.Dunlap wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:07:36 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote:

| Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| > On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:54:36 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote:
| > 
| > | Russell King wrote:
| > | > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:34:36PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| > | > 
| > | >> drivers/net/arm/am79c961a.c |   18 +++++++++---------
| > | >> drivers/net/arm/ether1.c    |   18 +++++++++---------
| > | >> drivers/net/arm/ether3.c    |   18 +++++++++---------
| > | >> drivers/net/arm/etherh.c    |    4 ++--
| > | >> 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
| > | > 
| > | > 
| > | > I think we should really consider using netdev_priv() in all these places
| > | > so the compiler knows that 'dev' and 'priv' are related.
| > | 
| > | 
| > | Good point.
| > 
| > I respectfully disagree, but if the maintainter won't merge
| > them as is, so be it.
| > 
| > I have trouble understanding why this:
| > 	return (char *)dev + ((sizeof(struct net_device) + 31) & ~31);
| > is better than using a structure->field, i.e.,
| > 	dev->priv
| > 
| > Can one of you enlighten me?
| 
| 
| One is an additional pointer load and dereference, and one is a constant 
| offset from the beginning of the dev structure, calculated at compile 
| time.  netdev_priv() provides the same results as dev->priv but at less 
| cost.

OK, thanks, I see.
I think it's ugly, but you'll get updated patches anyway.

I wasn't rejecting your patches.

In fact, I want to apply your cast patches separate from any 
netdev_priv() cleanup.

netdev_priv() should be a separate item on the janitor todo list.

RMK however is free to reject these patches for drivers/net/arm/ of 
course...

	Jeff