| To: | maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [BK ChangeSet@1.1118.1.1] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:30:43 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <5.1.0.14.2.20030423134636.100e5c60@unixmail.qualcomm.com> |
| References: | <5.1.0.14.2.20030423114915.10840678@unixmail.qualcomm.com> <20030423192640.GD26052@conectiva.com.br> <5.1.0.14.2.20030423134636.100e5c60@unixmail.qualcomm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:51:11 -0700 >This is just the first part, DaveM already merged the second part, >that deals with struct sock That's exactly what surprised me. He rejected complete patch and accepted something incomplete and broken. No, it was not broken, because he told me completely where he was going with his changes. He was building infrastructure piece by piece, and that's always an acceptable way to do things as long as it is explained where one is going with the changes. Your stuff was unacceptable from the start because you didn't put the ->owner into the protocol ops. I thought changes like that are always discussed on the lkml. No, networking patches can go solely to netdev or linux-net. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [BK ChangeSet@1.1118.1.1] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family, Max Krasnyansky |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [BK ChangeSet@1.1118.1.1] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family, Max Krasnyansky |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [BK ChangeSet@1.1118.1.1] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family, Max Krasnyansky |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [BK ChangeSet@1.1118.1.1] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family, Max Krasnyansky |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |