On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 21:18 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > How can reviewers make an informed decision, when you completely failed > to note: > > * This breaks the primary userspace user of this header, ethtool(8)
I cannot reproduce with either an ethtool-3 tarball or a fresh checkout from your git tree. Can you show me the error? It's a somewhat surprising allegation, because ethtool doesn't even _use_ the header directly from the kernel. It has its own copy, and currently includes it like this... typedef unsigned long long u64; /* hack, so we may include kernel's ethtool.h */ typedef __uint32_t u32; /* ditto */ typedef __uint16_t u16; /* ditto */ typedef __uint8_t u8; /* ditto */ #include "ethtool-copy.h" > * The patch was NAK'd (and I don't even get a "Naked-by:" header :)) Sorry, my recollection was that you backed down after everyone turned on you and declared that "but I _want_ to use 'u32' for userspace stuff because underscores hurt my eyes" was too silly for words. You didn't get a mention in the commit comment because I'd already committed it by the time we had the discussion. But I did mention it to Andrew at the time I asked him to put the hdrcleanup tree into -mm, and he seemed perfectly happy with the change. > * Despite knowing all this for quite some time, no associated userspace > fix patch has ever appeared. That's because to the best of my knowledge, userspace doesn't _need_ any fix at the moment. We've built the whole of the Fedora Core 6 test 1 release against (a subset of) these headers, and that includes ethtool. > If you are going to break stuff, AT LEAST TELL PEOPLE IN ALL CAPS ABOUT > IT, rather than providing the highly deceptive description as above. > And be courteous enough to help fix the breakage, if you please. If I break stuff, I promise I'll bear that in mind. -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
