| 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.
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [BK ChangeSet@xxxxxxxxxx] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family, Max Krasnyansky |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [BK ChangeSet@xxxxxxxxxx] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [BK ChangeSet@xxxxxxxxxx] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family, Max Krasnyansky |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [BK ChangeSet@xxxxxxxxxx] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family, Max Krasnyansky |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |