| To: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Redirect-Device |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 31 Mar 2005 18:26:58 -0500 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <424C7F96.4070002@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | jamalopolous |
| References: | <424C6089.1080507@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112303627.1073.71.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424C6B10.6030200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112306031.1073.109.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424C7813.4000101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331143531.30f4eb8f.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424C7F96.4070002@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 17:54, Ben Greear wrote: > No. I can't imagine a way to make it work with my application. > I think you are more comfortable with using netdevices and ioctls and /proc. If the action stuff cant do what you need i will make a donation to the EFF on your behalf;-> > I obviously can't force you to accept the redirect module, so > if no one else sees any reason for it, then we can simply > drop the matter and I'll carry it in my own patch set like > I do my other stuff. No hard feelings, and if someone decides > they could use something like it in the future, then perhaps > we can take another look at it. > Why dont we try to help you so you migrate from the approach you are currently taking? cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: KERNEL: assertion (!atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc)) failed at net/netlink/af_netlink.c (126), Herbert Xu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC] netif_rx: receive path optimization, Rick Jones |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: Redirect-Device, Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: Redirect-Device, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |