Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30

netdev

Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30

To:	jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30
From:	"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:	kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<Mutt.LNX.4.44.0208081018410.16830-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<Mutt.LNX.4.44.0208081018410.16830-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

   From: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:24:19 +1000 (EST)

   Suggested by Matthew Wilcox, the patch below consolidates FIOSETOWN etc. 
   ioctl handling into the socket layer, making it common for all sockets.

Do we really want to do this?  What if some socket family either
doesn't want to support it or wants to handle it differently?

   Btw, is af_wanpipe.c likely to stay in the tree?  It doesn't seem to be 
   used anymore.

I have no idea.  Ask the WAN people :-)

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, James Morris Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, David S. Miller <= Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, Matthew Wilcox Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, kuznet Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, Matthew Wilcox Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, James Morris Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, Matthew Wilcox Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, James Morris

Previous by Date:	Re: [PATCH] fix HIPQUAD macro in kernel.h, David S. Miller
Next by Date:	Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, Matthew Wilcox
Previous by Thread:	[PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, James Morris
Next by Thread:	Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30, Matthew Wilcox
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]