netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BK ChangeSet@xxxxxxxxxx] new module infrastructure for net_proto_fa

To: maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [BK ChangeSet@xxxxxxxxxx] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20030423182014.07ec6140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030423134636.100e5c60@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030423.163043.41633133.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <5.1.0.14.2.20030423182014.07ec6140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
   From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:41:56 -0700

   At 04:30 PM 4/23/2003, David S. Miller wrote:
   >Your stuff was unacceptable from the start because you didn't put
   >the ->owner into the protocol ops.
   But you didn't tell me that. You just said that it's "an ugly hack" without
   giving any other feedback.
    
As you mention, Rusty said this.

   What about this though
   
I'm sure Arnaldo will deal with the sys_accept() issues.
But this is a minor issue, Arnaldo's stuff is architectually
solid.

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