netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BK ChangeSet@xxxxxxxxxx] new module infrastructure for net_proto_f

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [BK ChangeSet@xxxxxxxxxx] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family
From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:43:42 -0700
Cc: acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030423.202954.85407627.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030423182014.07ec6140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5.1.0.14.2.20030423134636.100e5c60@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030423.163043.41633133.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <5.1.0.14.2.20030423182014.07ec6140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 08:29 PM 4/23/2003, David S. Miller wrote:
>   From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:41:56 -0700
>
>   At 04:30 PM 4/23/2003, David S. Miller wrote:
>   >Your stuff was unacceptable from the start because you didn't put
>   >the ->owner into the protocol ops.
>   But you didn't tell me that. You just said that it's "an ugly hack" without
>   giving any other feedback.
>    
>As you mention, Rusty said this.
>
>   What about this though
>   
>I'm sure Arnaldo will deal with the sys_accept() issues.
>But this is a minor issue, Arnaldo's stuff is architectually
>solid.

:) 

Ok Dave. I'm not sure why you're _completely_ ignoring my arguments.
You should have just said from the beginning that you were going to
ignore what I have to say regarding that issue. At least I wouldn't 
have wasted my time.

Sorry for bugging you.
Max


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>