Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+remove\s+unused\s+netlink\s+NL_EMULATE

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+remove\s+unused\s+netlink\s+NL_EMULATE_DEV\s+code\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. e panics with tulip (score: 1): Author: _Domsch@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:36:37 -0800; Now that netlink_attach() has been removed, the NL_EMULATE_DEV handler functions can't ever be set. So let's rip them out too, because what's left behind can't be used at all. Signed-off-by: Chris Wr; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01082.html (9,825 bytes)
2. II (score: 1): Author: eu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:09:18 -0800; Hi Chris, Why don't you kill Ethertap completely while you're at it. Ethertap needs "Netlink device emulation" stuff. And this whole thing has been marked OBSOLETE for more than two years now. Most p; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01083.html (8,309 bytes)
3. H 1/5] TCP infrastructure split out (score: 1): Author: ger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:02:53 -0800; I'd prefer that too. What about the netlink_dev implementation itself? Should it be marked obsolete? thanks, -chris; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01090.html (8,527 bytes)
4. dummy as IMQ replacement (score: 1): Author: phen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: 18 Mar 2005 20:48:20 -0500; It should die - pieces of it have already been slowly disapearing. cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01093.html (8,679 bytes)
5. ppend_data (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:26:11 -0800; 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 sl; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01181.html (9,097 bytes)
6. .c (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:22:35 -0800; 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; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01288.html (9,149 bytes)
7. [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code (score: 1): Author: Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:55:20 -0800; NL_EMULATE_DEV handler functions can't ever be set, so let's rip them out too. I realize the other half (netlink_attach()) just came out in 2.6.11-rc1, but what's left behind can't be used at all. Si; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00412.html (9,022 bytes)
8. [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code (score: 1): Author: Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:36:37 -0800; Now that netlink_attach() has been removed, the NL_EMULATE_DEV handler functions can't ever be set. So let's rip them out too, because what's left behind can't be used at all. Signed-off-by: Chris Wr; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03005.html (9,825 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code (score: 1): Author: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:09:18 -0800; Hi Chris, Why don't you kill Ethertap completely while you're at it. Ethertap needs "Netlink device emulation" stuff. And this whole thing has been marked OBSOLETE for more than two years now. Most p; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03006.html (8,256 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code (score: 1): Author: Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:02:53 -0800; I'd prefer that too. What about the netlink_dev implementation itself? Should it be marked obsolete? thanks, -chris; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03013.html (8,604 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 18 Mar 2005 20:48:20 -0500; It should die - pieces of it have already been slowly disapearing. cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03016.html (8,790 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code (score: 1): Author: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:26:11 -0800; 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 Ethert; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03104.html (9,237 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:22:35 -0800; 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; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03211.html (9,312 bytes)
14. [PATCH] remove unused netlink NL_EMULATE_DEV code (score: 1): Author: Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:55:20 -0800; NL_EMULATE_DEV handler functions can't ever be set, so let's rip them out too. I realize the other half (netlink_attach()) just came out in 2.6.11-rc1, but what's left behind can't be used at all. Si; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01432.html (9,022 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]