| To: | Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [2.6 patch] net/sched/: possible cleanups |
| From: | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:16:28 -0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041218010024.GD21288@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Conectiva S.A. |
| References: | <20041215012754.GH12937@xxxxxxxxx> <41BF9A95.5050902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041218010024.GD21288@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041103) |
Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:59:49PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:Adrian Bunk wrote:The patch below contans the following possible cleanups: - make some needlessly global code static - sch_htb.c: #undef HTB_DEBUG diffstat output: include/net/act_api.h | 3 ---Adrian, may I suggest that you post the networking related patches only to netdev?Until now I thought it's never a bad idea to Cc linux-kernel on any patches. Is there a specific reason why you consider this being a bad thing (well, bandwith shouldn't be that much of an issue considering how high-volume linux-kernel is...)? I mentioned that when making the same request to another person one or two days ago: all the networking hackers I know are subscribed to netdev, several of them aren't subscribed to linux-kernel. - Arnaldo |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.6 patch] net/sched/: possible cleanups, Adrian Bunk |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: LLTX and netif_stop_queue, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [2.6 patch] net/sched/: possible cleanups, Adrian Bunk |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [2.6 patch] net/sched/: possible cleanups, Thomas Graf |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |