On Tuesday 11 April 2006 11:36, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Denis Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:11:12 +0300
>
> > Ok, one last try. Would you like this smallish patch instead?
> > It takes care of those BIG inlines.
>
> You're putting vlan stuff into a net/core/*.c f
From: Denis Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:11:12 +0300
> Ok, one last try. Would you like this smallish patch instead?
> It takes care of those BIG inlines.
You're putting vlan stuff into a net/core/*.c file, that
is not correct.
If we're not going to do the ifdef mess, f
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 10:58, David S. Miller wrote:
> This is not very nice, there is no way I'm applying these patches.
>
> I think the current situation is far better than the large pile of
> ifdefs these patches are adding to the tree.
>
> Let's just leave things the way they are ok?
:(
O
From: Denis Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:47:36 +0300
> On Tuesday 11 April 2006 10:44, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 April 2006 10:43, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > These patches exclude VLAN code from netdevice drivers
> > and from bonding module, and even remove vla
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 10:44, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 10:43, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> These patches exclude VLAN code from netdevice drivers
> and from bonding module, and even remove vlan-related
> members of struct netdevice if VLAN is not configured.
>
> Compile tested o
