| To: | "Chad N. Tindel" <chad@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:05:24 -0700 |
| Cc: | fubar@xxxxxxxxxx, shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, chad@xxxxxxxxxx, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030930213650.GA71877@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx> <200309301442.31991.shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx> <200309301639.h8UGdqCq026858@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030930213650.GA71877@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:36:50 -0400 "Chad N. Tindel" <chad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My recommendations are more towards the middle than either end. I would > like to see us get rid of the _OLD ioctls in the 2.6 kernel specifically > because it uses the SIOCDEVPRIVATE ioctls. ... > I would like to see them stay in 2.4 for the rest of the 2.4 tree > specifically so that people who want to run on 3 year old systems > can continue to do so without us breaking their world. I think this is fine, personally. I defer to Jeff for final judgment, he should be allowed to chime in at least once more. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] (0/16) intro to IRDA patches for 2.6.0-test6, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues, Shmulik Hen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |