Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <redacted>
---
drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
index f18149a..36a16d5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
+++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
@@ -679,11 +679,12 @@ static int virtnet_set_mac_address(struct net_device *dev, void *p)
{
struct virtnet_info *vi = netdev_priv(dev);
struct virtio_device *vdev = vi->vdev;
- int ret;
+ struct sockaddr *addr = p;
- ret = eth_mac_addr(dev, p);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
+ if (!is_valid_ether_addr(addr->sa_data))
+ return -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
+ memcpy(dev->dev_addr, addr->sa_data, ETH_ALEN);
+ dev->addr_assign_type &= ~NET_ADDR_RANDOM;
if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC))
vdev->config->set(vdev, offsetof(struct virtio_net_config, mac),--
1.7.10.4
From: Jiri Pirko <redacted>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:27:46 +0200
Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <redacted>
Applied, but this seriously makes eth_mac_addr() completely useless.
Technically, every eth_mac_addr() user in a software/virtual device
should behave the way virtio_net does now.
It therefore probably makes sense to add a boolean arg which when true
elides the netif_running() check then fixup and audit every caller.
Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:30:46AM CEST, davem@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Jiri Pirko <redacted>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:27:46 +0200
quoted
Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <redacted>
Applied, but this seriously makes eth_mac_addr() completely useless.
Technically, every eth_mac_addr() user in a software/virtual device
should behave the way virtio_net does now.
I guess to. But for some HW devices eth_mac_addr() is needed (when they
does not support "life" mac change")
It therefore probably makes sense to add a boolean arg which when true
elides the netif_running() check then fixup and audit every caller.
I was thinking about this. Maybe probably __eth_mac_addr() which does
not have netif_running() check and eth_mac_addr() calling
netif_running() check and __eth_mac_addr() after that.
What do you think?
Jirka
From: Jiri Pirko <redacted>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:35:25 +0200
Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:30:46AM CEST, davem@davemloft.net wrote:
quoted
It therefore probably makes sense to add a boolean arg which when true
elides the netif_running() check then fixup and audit every caller.
I was thinking about this. Maybe probably __eth_mac_addr() which does
not have netif_running() check and eth_mac_addr() calling
netif_running() check and __eth_mac_addr() after that.
What do you think?
Yes, sounds good.