Re: [PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[pat-lkml <pat-lkml@erley.org>]

Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:21 -0500, pat-lkml wrote:
>> Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:44 -0500, pat-lkml wrote:
>>>> Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock.  Update crda to the new names
>>>> and add #define for libnl-1.1.
>>> But libnl-2.0 comes with a define too:
>>> #define nl_handle nl_sock
>>>
>>> you just need to include the right headers, no?
>>>
>>> johannes
>> dunno.... but I can't find it:
>>
>> libnl $ egrep "#define nl_handle" * -r
>> libnl $ git pull
>> Already up-to-date.
> 
> Ah. Grr. Just recently removed.
> 
> johannes

Which leads back around to my question, should I continue pushing
patches like this your way (after making sure the right patch is on the
right e-mail with the right description), or do we want to wait and I'll
just maintain the patches outside of git, and push them once libnl-2.0
hits?  On one hand, it makes testing both versions easier, on the other,
it makes a lot of little 'fix' commits like this.  I have no issues
maintaining these sorts of patches, but I don't want to do it if you
don't want them.

Pat