| To: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission |
| From: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:47:57 +0000 (GMT) |
| Cc: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200101070543.VAA24689@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "David S. Miller" at Jan 06, 2001 09:43:16 PM |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> thing so that some stupid program that depends on ifconfig look and feel > would be a good start. > > I could not agree more. This reminds me to do something I could not > justify before, making netlink be enabled in the kernel and > non-configurable. Why. Its bad enough that the networking layer doesnt let you configure out stuff like SACK and the big routing hashes. Please don't make it even worse for the embedded world. 99.9% of Linux boxes probably have less than 5 routing table entries > I could almost, but not quite, justify it right now just because "ip" > is becomming standard and needs it. ip is also not the smallest and simplest of binaries. You can fit an ifconfig for ip in about 24K |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Alan Cox |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Alan Cox |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |