| To: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:54:25 -0700 |
| Cc: | chad@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3F78C262.30109@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030929232534.GB93323@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3F78C262.30109@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:38:10 -0400 Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, if that's David's sentiment, then I respectfully disagree with that. I really really really did intend to move these deprecated as fast as possible. This is because these bonding ioctls use SIOCDEVPRIVATE values. I don't think it's much of a burdon to remove their existence from the 2.6.x copy of the driver, and I really wish you guys would do this because then people would fix their tools. You can very simply compile a copy of the tool that works with the non-SIOCDEVPRIVATE ioctls we added to the bonding driver a LONG time ago and it'll work with 2.4.x as well. It doesn't break because you made it work with the non-ambiguous ioctl values. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Fw: Badness in local_bh_enable at kernel/softirq.c:119, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] irda 2.6.0-test6, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues, Chad N. Tindel |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues, Shmulik Hen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |