|Subject:||Re: patch: introduce simple actions|
|From:||Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:27:27 +0100|
|Cc:||"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>|
|References:||<1111345551.1095.82.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <423DCD8C.6030100@xxxxxxxxx> <1111347345.1094.98.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <423DD5E6.2020708@xxxxxxxxx> <1111349853.1093.136.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050106 Debian/1.7.5-1|
Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
Unfortunately code "augmentation"( as opposed to inheritance - cant think of a better word) is much easier to do this way. The benefit of it is the user gets a very simple programming interface - which is the main reason this was written to begin with. The standard interface exists, and more versed people or someone wanting to write something complex can go that path. At some point i would like to document all this stuff.
I don't think that a simple interface and this cleanup conflict with each other.
How about this: I submit this patch (with Thomas cleanup) and the simple action. I will hold onto the 4 other actions i already have some of them complete until you get around to moving things around and then i will redo them to conform. This gets it off my back and we dont have any miscommunication of what you are trying to do. sounds fair?
Go ahead, it will be a while before I continue with the cleanups. Regards Patrick
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: Fw: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4381] New: When i try to start a pppoe conn., crash at net/core/skbuff.c:91, Patrick McHardy|
|Next by Date:||Note on wireless development process, Jeff Garzik|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: patch: introduce simple actions, jamal|
|Next by Thread:||Re: patch: introduce simple actions, David S. Miller|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|