Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This doesn't support anything. e.g. I caught quite a lot of bugs after Ingo
> Molnar, but this doesn't make his code "poor". People are people.
> Anyway, I would be happy to see the typo.
Look up thread. You replied to the message where I commented o
Quoting Kirill Korotaev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Cleanup of dev_base list use, with the aim to make device list
> per-namespace.
> In almost every occasion, use of dev_base variable and dev->next pointer
> could be easily replaced by for_each_netdev loop.
> A few most complicated
Cleanup of dev_base list use, with the aim to make device list per-namespace.
In almost every occasion, use of dev_base variable and dev->next pointer
could be easily replaced by for_each_netdev loop.
A few most complicated places were converted to using
first_netdev()/next_netdev().
As a proof
Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>Cleanup of dev_base list use, with the aim to make device list per-namespace.
>>>In almost every occasion, use of dev_base variable and dev->next pointer
>>>could be easily replaced by for_each_netdev loop.
>>>A few most complicated places were conver
Cleanup of dev_base list use, with the aim to make device list per-namespace.
In almost every occasion, use of dev_base variable and dev->next pointer
could be easily replaced by for_each_netdev loop.
A few most complicated places were converted to using
first_netdev()/next_netdev().
As a proof
Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Cleanup of dev_base list use, with the aim to make device list per-namespace.
> In almost every occasion, use of dev_base variable and dev->next pointer
> could be easily replaced by for_each_netdev loop.
> A few most complicated places were converted
