| To: | Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:22:35 -0800 |
| Cc: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <423F11C3.2020803@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050318233637.GS5389@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <423B6DAE.9050803@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050319010253.GU5389@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111196899.1264.118.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <423F11C3.2020803@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:26:11 -0800 Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > jamal wrote: > > 1 > > On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 20:02, Chris Wright wrote: > > > > > >>I'd prefer that too. What about the netlink_dev implementation itself? > >>Should it be marked obsolete? > >> > > > > It should die - pieces of it have already been slowly disapearing. > > Totally agree. Even for Ethertap it was easy to use Netlink sockets directly. I've applied Chris's original patch, then killed ethertap and netlink_dev from my tree. It's very telling that CONFIG_ETHERTAP was still marked EXPERIMENTAL :-) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] TCP BIC not binary searching correctly, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Resend: [NETDRV] Merge register_netdev calls, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code, Max Krasnyansky |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 3/5] TCP Westwood+ support, Stephen Hemminger |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |