In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Smith writes:
I don't quite understand Paul's reasoning, though; it's not actually
useful to unload/reload parts of a device's bus attachment without
unloading/reloading all the downstream parts of the driver.
I think the fix should probably be committed and
Ian Dowse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Smith writes:
I don't quite understand Paul's reasoning, though; it's not actually
useful to unload/reload parts of a device's bus attachment without
unloading/reloading all the downstream parts of the driver.
What do you mean by the
Ian Dowse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Smith writes:
I don't quite understand Paul's reasoning, though; it's not actually
useful to unload/reload parts of a device's bus attachment without
unloading/reloading all the downstream parts of the driver.
What do you mean
I've sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], a maintainer of lnc ethernet
driver, to fix the module name of lnc almost two weeks before.
However, he maybe too busy working, there is no response from him. Are
there any committers to check my patch and fix the driver?
-- -
Makoto MATSUSHITA
It
See my PR kern/25582. The explanation why Bill Paul does not want to make this
change yet is there :)
On 18-Mar-2001 Makoto MATSUSHITA wrote:
I've sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], a maintainer of lnc ethernet
driver, to fix the module name of lnc almost two weeks before.
However, he
See my PR kern/25582. The explanation why Bill Paul does not want to make this
change yet is there :)
That's Paul Richards, not Bill Paul.
I don't quite understand Paul's reasoning, though; it's not actually
useful to unload/reload parts of a device's bus attachment without
That's Paul Richards, not Bill Paul.
My apologies, I should have checked before pressing that 'Send' button :(
I don't quite understand Paul's reasoning, though; it's not actually
useful to unload/reload parts of a device's bus attachment without
unloading/reloading all the downstream
