{Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-15 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Ian McDonald wrote: > On 4/15/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > in fact, according to this: > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/13/139 > > > > that notice was put in the feature removal file well over a year ago, > > during 2.6.15. so that would seem to be

{Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-15 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Ian McDonald wrote: On 4/15/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in fact, according to this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/13/139 that notice was put in the feature removal file well over a year ago, during 2.6.15. so that would seem to be more than

Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Ian McDonald
On 4/15/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: in fact, according to this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/13/139 that notice was put in the feature removal file well over a year ago, during 2.6.15. so that would seem to be more than adequate time for everyone to prepare for it. but it

{Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Robert P. J. Day
(i'm betting that the mail server i use back in canada is going to tag this yet again with "{Spam?}" since i'm in california at the moment and i'll just bet it's freaking out seeing stuff coming from a totally unknown IP address. i've already sent an email to the admins about this. sorry.) On

Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Rene Herman
On 04/15/2007 01:38 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: Why are all your messages getting a "{Spam?}" subject prefix? i have no idea, that's a recent development. is that happening with anyone else? Not that I've seen. Your last message/thread were the others: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/14/89

Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Ian McDonald
On 4/15/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper. Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Apart from the merits of removing this which I can't comment on, I thought the usual procedure was to place a removal in

{Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Rene Herman wrote: > On 04/15/2007 01:30 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper. > > Why are all your messages getting a "{Spam?}" subject prefix? i have no idea, that's a recent development. is that happening with anyone else?

Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Rene Herman
On 04/15/2007 01:30 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper. Why are all your messages getting a "{Spam?}" subject prefix? Rene. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More

{Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Robert P. J. Day
Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper. Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- nothing seems to be using this, it's labelled "OBSOLETE" in the Kconfig file, and there is not a single test for CONFIG_SHAPER anywhere in the tree. time to die.

{Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Robert P. J. Day
Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper. Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- nothing seems to be using this, it's labelled OBSOLETE in the Kconfig file, and there is not a single test for CONFIG_SHAPER anywhere in the tree. time to die.

Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Rene Herman
On 04/15/2007 01:30 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper. Why are all your messages getting a {Spam?} subject prefix? Rene. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More

{Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Rene Herman wrote: On 04/15/2007 01:30 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper. Why are all your messages getting a {Spam?} subject prefix? i have no idea, that's a recent development. is that happening with anyone else? rday --

Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Ian McDonald
On 4/15/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper. Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apart from the merits of removing this which I can't comment on, I thought the usual procedure was to place a removal in

Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Rene Herman
On 04/15/2007 01:38 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: Why are all your messages getting a {Spam?} subject prefix? i have no idea, that's a recent development. is that happening with anyone else? Not that I've seen. Your last message/thread were the others: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/14/89

{Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Robert P. J. Day
(i'm betting that the mail server i use back in canada is going to tag this yet again with {Spam?} since i'm in california at the moment and i'll just bet it's freaking out seeing stuff coming from a totally unknown IP address. i've already sent an email to the admins about this. sorry.) On

Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [PATCH] NET: Remove obsolete traffic shaper code.

2007-04-14 Thread Ian McDonald
On 4/15/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in fact, according to this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/13/139 that notice was put in the feature removal file well over a year ago, during 2.6.15. so that would seem to be more than adequate time for everyone to prepare for it. but it