[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:27:17 +0400
Cc: jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050519.114813.85686672.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: MIPT
References: <20050519000809.2fca25c5.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <Xine.LNX.4.44.0505190918430.15522-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050519.114813.85686672.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 11:48 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:19:33 -0400 (EDT)
> > On Thu, 19 May 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > > We should remove the feature.  If there is demonstrated need for multiple
> > > instances then it should be done by more conventional means - syscall,
> > > allocation of a device major then use the minor as a selector or whatever.
> > 
> > I'd suggest removing the connector code completely.
> I totally agree, it's crap at the current time and the author doesn't
> fix the problems being shown in it, in fact he defends some of them
> even this one.  It needs lots of work still.

There were no problems reported.

What I defend is ability to function correctly when some changes 
may be introduced by providing some extensions that may be used.

        Evgeniy Polyakov

Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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