| To: | ak@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: comment about struct tcp_tw_bucket in struct sock |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 14 May 2003 13:02:32 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | olh@xxxxxxx, marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030514195731.GC31303@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030514192305.GB31303@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030514.123421.85395571.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030514195731.GC31303@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:57:31 +0200 When they cut'n'paste structures they're completely on their own ... Depends upon who's willing to support them. I hope you will never let stop such an omnious third party module you from doing any bug fix or optimization. Aha, you're right and _I_ don't need to worry about this. I'm merely saying some vendor's _might_. :-) But see, since it only matters in the main kernel, every attempt to change the layout of struct sock will go through me before it hits the vanilla tree, so as a result I'll catch such problems and we thus have no problems :-) You can't have it both ways Andi, either we care about arbitrary third parties do or we don't. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: comment about struct tcp_tw_bucket in struct sock, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | missing netrom patch in 2.5, davej |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: comment about struct tcp_tw_bucket in struct sock, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: comment about struct tcp_tw_bucket in struct sock, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |