| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: network manpages was Re: is UDP_CORK "real" |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | 29 Apr 2005 17:29:39 +0200 |
| Date: | Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:29:39 +0200 |
| Cc: | glen.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, mtk-lkml@xxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050427114323.53e43e32.davem@davemloft.net> |
| References: | <426833F0.9010803@hp.com> <m1u0lty7uh.fsf@muc.de> <426F2A1D.10001@aarnet.edu.au> <20050427122648.GA12597@muc.de> <20050427114323.53e43e32.davem@davemloft.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:43:23AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > 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. Hmm, you could ask them at least to submit a patch. > > 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. Well, you have to talk to Michael who maintains them now. I personally think it would be a good idea, yes. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: patch2: del/get byid, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | msleep_interruptible() in ethtool ioctl and keyboard input, Venkatesan, Ganesh |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: network manpages was Re: is UDP_CORK "real", David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC INTRO 0/5] H-TCP congestion control, Baruch Even |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |