| To: | scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] netdev_ops |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:37:37 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | willy@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E0102229134@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E0102229134@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:18:50 -0700 With HAVE_NETDEV_OPS, you're right, we're maintaining the wrapper code outside the kernel. But, it does leave the possibility of having a shared backwards compatibility code for multiple (all?) drivers for those stuck with supporting kernels without netdev_ops. And precisely I am showing you how all this backwards compat stuff is going to hurt you. You can never truly take advantage of things that eliminate duplicated code in all the drivers, and this netdev_ops case is a great example. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH][2.4] more atm changes backported to 2.4, chas williams |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Prefix List against 2.5.70 (re-done), Krishna Kumar |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [PATCH] netdev_ops, Feldman, Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] netdev_ops, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |