netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [PATCH] netdev_ops

from [Jeff Garzik] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netdev_ops
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:53:00 -0400
Cc: scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030710.133737.41660806.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: none
References: <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E0102229134@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030710.133737.41660806.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021213 Debian/1.2.1-2.bunk 
David S. Miller wrote:

   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.
Actually there is a solution that IMO will make everybody happy. Lemme finish writing up my comments to Matthew... 

        Jeff
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked, Pekka Savola
Next by Date:  Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked, Mika Liljeberg
Previous by Thread:  Re: [PATCH] netdev_ops, David S. Miller
Next by Thread:  Question about netlink, Krishna Kumar
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]