On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:26:00PM -0500, jamal wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 16:17, Neil Horman wrote: > > > No worries. What exactly is the point of contention on netdev? (I'm not > > currently following that list). My patch seems to follow the common > > practice > > for CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT, in that all references to the action member of the > > appropriate struct are themselves ifdef-ed. > > We are trying to kill appearance of any #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT in the > classifiers. The patch you sent is correct except it will introduce > an ifdef that we are trying to kill. The current workaround is to turn > on CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT in the kernel build. > > cheers, > jamal > Gotcha. That seems like a pretty good idea. :) Thanks! Neil
> > -- /*************************************************** *Neil Horman *Software Engineer *Red Hat, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] *gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1 *http://pgp.mit.edu ***************************************************/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
