On 2 October 2012 12:29, Bjørn Mork <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bjorn@mork.no" target="_blank">bjorn@mork.no</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><a href="mailto:matthew@walster.org">matthew@walster.org</a> writes:<br>
<br>
> I'm hopefully going to be submitting the attached patch to the<br>
> mainline kernel tree, and as it's my first patch, I figured it would<br>
> be wise to run it past KN first in case I'd done something<br>
> monumentally stupid! I found it through a checkpatch run, from the<br>
> excellent talk by GregKH at FOSDEM a year or so back.<br>
><br>
> Any input would be greatly appreciated!<br>
<br>
</div></div>Looks fine to me, but you might want to remove/update the related<br>
comment as well:<br>
<br>
/*<br>
* This ALLMULTI check should be redundant by 1.4<br>
* so don't forget to remove it.<br>
*<br>
* Seems, you forgot to remove it. All silly devices<br>
* seems to set IFF_PROMISC.<br>
*/<br>
<br>
else if (1 /*dev->flags&IFF_PROMISC */ ) {<br>
if (unlikely(!ether_addr_equal_64bits(eth->h_dest,<br>
dev->dev_addr)))<br>
skb->pkt_type = PACKET_OTHERHOST;<br>
}<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Looks like someone was expecting a 1.4 at the time. We know better now<br>
:-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks, marvellous ;)</div><div><br></div><div>Matthew Walster </div></div>