On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 23:21 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Add file pattern to MAINTAINER entry
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Dave Dillow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 09:04 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > TODO list currently includes following main items:
> > * redundancy algorithm (drop me a request of your own, but it is highly
> > unlikley that Reed-Solomon based wil
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 18:25 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 12:04:29AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Remove things like "for (;;)" or "for (; condition ;)".
> > Ever heard of while loops?
>
> > --- wireless-dev.orig/net/d80211/sta_info.c 2006-11-16 23:40:48.164935990
>
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 16:39 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signe
f
> the kernel simply provided such a feature that almost all other networking
> devices provide.
ftp://ftp.cup.hp.com/dist/networking/tools/beforeafter.tar.gz
as Rick mentioned earlier, and then you won't need to write a
complicated script.
--
Dave Dillow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To uns
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 11:38 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thursday 13 April 2006 04:24, Dave Dillow wrote:
> > Regardless, I remain opposed to this particular instance of bloat
> > busting. While both patches have improved in style, they remove a useful
> > feature a
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 09:04 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 April 2006 20:18, Dave Dillow wrote:
> > > > or loaded. And even if it saves 200 bytes in one
> > > > module, unless that module text was already less than 200 bytes into a
> > > >
Ingo Oeser wrote:
Dave Dillow: Is this style clean enough to have it in your driver?
Though I'm not real fond of Denis's last patch, I think I prefer it's
style to this, solely because it removes more code when VLANs are
disabled -- you've left the spin_locks in, a
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 11:55 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 April 2006 16:59, Dave Dillow wrote:
> > DaveM beat me to it, but as he said, it saves 5K only if you have all
> > the drivers built in
>
> I have most of network drivers built in.
> I want network ca
agic == VLAN_TX_COOKIE_MAGIC)
#else
#define vlan_tx_tag_present(x) 0
#endif
to get the cache savings on the hot paths without the ugliness.
> > Besides, if you're going to do this, you can get rid of the
> > spin_lock functions around it to, since they only protect tp->vlgrp in
&g
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 15:01 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Dave Dillow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:25:57 -0500
>
> > In that case, I'll blow the dust off and try to make it sooner
> > rather than later.
>
> Please take your ti
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 13:16 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Dave Dillow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:45:04 -0500
>
> > Would this still be interesting to anyone? If I can get a good
> > framework in place, maybe we can get Intel to open up thei
onto a card supporting IPSEC hw assist by a set of
> patches posted here about a year ago.
Heh, I need to dust those patches off and readdress the issues raised
back then...
Would this still be interesting to anyone? If I can get a good framework
in place, maybe we can get Intel to open up their
13 matches
Mail list logo
