| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx (jamal) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission |
| From: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:51:11 +0000 (GMT) |
| Cc: | alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan Cox), davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller), ak@xxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101071102140.18916-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "jamal" at Jan 07, 2001 11:12:23 AM |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> Ok. Good point. > But remember that parsing /proc for an embedded system is also not the > most healthy thing. I dont compile in /proc either. SIOCGIFCONF is enough for an embedded box. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Alan Cox |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |