| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: network manpages was Re: is UDP_CORK "real" |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:43:23 -0700 |
| Cc: | glen.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050427122648.GA12597@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <426833F0.9010803@xxxxxx> <m1u0lty7uh.fsf@xxxxxx> <426F2A1D.10001@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050427122648.GA12597@xxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On 27 Apr 2005 14:26:48 +0200 Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> wrote: > It would be nice of course if David could enforce a policy > to require a manpage patch for new ioctls/socket options etc. > in the future, then such documentation lag would not happen. I could easily do this if the files were in the kernel tree itself, but since it's external it's not so easy to do. Why don't we put them into the kernel tree? They are just small documents and I bet they will stay in sync better if they were moved into the kernel tree. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | how to suppress link local addresses, patrick mcmanus |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [BK PATCHES] 2.4.x net driver updates, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | network manpages was Re: is UDP_CORK "real", Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: network manpages was Re: is UDP_CORK "real", Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |