| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Request for an ARPHRD_ |
| From: | Daniele Orlandi <daniele@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:58:23 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20051024222222.GA11005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <200510240255.28416.daniele@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200510250008.10409.daniele@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20051024222222.GA11005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.8 |
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 00:22, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > > Your code might never end up in the kernel at all, for example if you > ever lose interest in it. The situation that we'd like to avoid is > ending up with reserved constants for code that was never submitted > upstream at all. Okay, I see your point. IMHO I'd have preferred a more open politic like libpcap's. There may be valid reasons to keep code out of the tree and this makes maintenance even harder to perform than it already is. Thanks anyway, Bye, -- Daniele Orlandi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Request for an ARPHRD_, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH/RFC] Remove spurious sk_filter() call from IPv6, James Morris |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Request for an ARPHRD_, Lennert Buytenhek |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Request for an ARPHRD_, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |