| To: | scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] netdev_ops |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:42:07 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | willy@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E0102229133@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E0102229133@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:47:13 -0700 Can we get a HAVE_NETDEV_OPS? Don't tell me you're seriously considering having _TWO_ copies of all this code sitting around? At that point backwards compat becomes absolutely rediculious. If it's important to you, just stick to the current scheme. You gain nothing by maintaining two copies of the same code. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: [PATCH] netdev_ops, Feldman, Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [PATCH] netdev_ops, Feldman, Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [PATCH] netdev_ops, Feldman, Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] netdev_ops, Matthew Wilcox |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |