| To: | ak@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug? |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:18:46 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20020213090932.A7398@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20020212.234325.59465194.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3C6A1EF5.1BF97B99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020213090932.A7398@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:09:32 +0100 On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 03:08:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Can we at least return -EOPNOTSUPPORTED, please? Otherwise you have the > current situation: random binaries breaking when you run them under > 2.2.x versus 2.4.x. 2.2 behaved the same way. Only 2.0 did differently. Keep this in mind Jeff, in any arguments you make. This didn't happen yesterday, or even 2 years ago, it happened 5 years ago. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |