Andi Kleen writes:
> 2.4.4 is basically like 2.5.0 as far as networking is concerned, it
> includes major fundamental changes to the stack.
Andi, please. Get over it. That code is 6 months old.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
Rogier Wolff writes:
> But it's always been said that source code compatiblity would be
> maintained.
"when possible", we've made no such total souce level
compat. guarentee. And more such changes are coming, for example the
quota bugs can't be fixed without breaking source level compat. for
On 11 May 01 at 12:32, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:21:59PM +, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> > When I was updating VMware's vmnet, I decided to use
> >
> > #ifdef skb_shinfo
>
> Yes I forgot that RedHat already shipped it :-(
Not only that RedHat shipped it, but thousands of peo
Petr Vandrovec writes:
> When I was updating VMware's vmnet, I decided to use
>
> #ifdef skb_shinfo
No, don't use that, use MAX_SKB_FRAGS like the drivers do.
I guarentee to preserve that, whereas I reserve the right
to change the skb_shinfo implementation however I like.
Later,
David S. Mi
Andi Kleen writes:
> I guess it would be possible to add a HAVE_ZEROCOPY to skbuff.h to make
> it a bit easier for single source drivers.
Try MAX_SKB_FRAG, the drivers use that already.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:39:29PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > But it's always been said that source code compatiblity would be
> > maintained. I'm a bit pissed that people just go about changing public
> > source-level interfaces.
>
> 2.4.4 is basically like 2.5.0 as far
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:39:29PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> But it's always been said that source code compatiblity would be
> maintained. I'm a bit pissed that people just go about changing public
> source-level interfaces.
2.4.4 is basically like 2.5.0 as far as networking is concerned, it
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:21:59PM +, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> > When I was updating VMware's vmnet, I decided to use
> >
> > #ifdef skb_shinfo
>
> Yes I forgot that RedHat already shipped it :-(
>
> > This gives you maximal backward compatibility, as all public zerocopy
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:21:59PM +, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> When I was updating VMware's vmnet, I decided to use
>
> #ifdef skb_shinfo
Yes I forgot that RedHat already shipped it :-(
> This gives you maximal backward compatibility, as all public zerocopy
> patches contain this macro. Only
On 11 May 01 at 12:03, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:56:35AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> I guess it would be possible to add a HAVE_ZEROCOPY to skbuff.h to make
> it a bit easier for single source drivers.
>
> --- include/linux/skbuff.h-oWed May 9 12:36:44 2001
> +++ inc
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:56:35AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> Rogier Wolff writes:
> > It seems that in 2.4.4 suddenly the function "skb_cow" no longer
> > returns the modified skb, but it retuns and integer for
> > succes/failure.
> >
> > This means that for networking modules requi
Rogier Wolff writes:
> It seems that in 2.4.4 suddenly the function "skb_cow" no longer
> returns the modified skb, but it retuns and integer for
> succes/failure.
>
> This means that for networking modules requiring this function, there
> is no source code compatibilty between 2.4.3 and 2
Hi,
It seems that in 2.4.4 suddenly the function "skb_cow" no longer
returns the modified skb, but it retuns and integer for
succes/failure.
This means that for networking modules requiring this function, there
is no source code compatibilty between 2.4.3 and 2.4.4.
Rog
13 matches
Mail list logo
