netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Bonding-announce] [PATCH SET][bonding] cleanup

To: "Chad N. Tindel" <chad@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Bonding-announce] [PATCH SET][bonding] cleanup
From: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:11:53 +0300
Cc: bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bonding-announce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Noam, Amir" <amir.noam@xxxxxxxxx>, "Mendelson, Tsippy" <tsippy.mendelson@xxxxxxxxx>, "Noam, Marom" <noam.marom@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20030925164719.GA45241@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Intel corp.
References: <200309251549.59177.shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx> <20030925164719.GA45241@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.4.3
On Thursday 25 September 2003 07:47 pm, Chad N. Tindel wrote:
> > patch 4 - remove dead code, old compatibility stuff and redundant
> >           checks.
>
> I'm a bit concerned about doing some of this stuff in the 2.4
> series.  That compatibility stuff is there for a reason, and was
> set to be removed in 2.6.  Perhaps we shouldn't be doing stuff this
> drastic until 2.6 because of the risk of breaking users.

That's the word I got from Jay in response to the " [Kernel-janitors] 
old ioctl definitions in 2.5" thread.

>Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>       I was going to add it on to the end of the clean up set, but
> if you want to do it, go ahead.  Nobody seems to have objected to
> removing the _OLD stuff, which I view as a good thing.

-- 
| Shmulik Hen   Advanced Network Services  |
| Israel Design Center, Jerusalem          |
| LAN Access Division, Platform Networking |
| Intel Communications Group, Intel corp.  |


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