On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 10:55:14 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
On 29/10/24 07:58, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:02:27 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
@@ -3025,7 +3025,7 @@ static int bnxt_set_link_ksettings(struct net_device *dev,
{
struct bnxt *bp = netdev_priv(dev);
struct bnxt_link_info *link_info = &bp->link_info;
- const struct ethtool_link_settings *base = &lk_ksettings->base;
+ const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *base = &lk_ksettings->base;
Please improve the variable ordering while at it. Longest list first,
so move the @base definition first.
OK. This would end up looking like:
const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *base = &lk_ksettings->base;
struct bnxt *bp = netdev_priv(dev);
struct bnxt_link_info *link_info = &bp->link_info;
Correct, one step at a time.
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int linkmodes_reply_size(const struct ethnl_req_info *req_base,
{
const struct linkmodes_reply_data *data = LINKMODES_REPDATA(reply_base);
const struct ethtool_link_ksettings *ksettings = &data->ksettings;
- const struct ethtool_link_settings *lsettings = &ksettings->base;
+ const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *lsettings = &ksettings->base;
here it was correct and now its not
I don't think you want to change this. `lsettings` is based on `ksettings`. So,
`ksettings` should go first. The same scenario for the one below.
In which case you need to move the init out of line.