From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shmulik Hen Subject: Re: [Bonding-announce] [PATCH SET][bonding] cleanup Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:11:53 +0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <200309252011.53960.shmulik.hen@intel.com> References: <200309251549.59177.shmulik.hen@intel.com> <20030925164719.GA45241@calma.pair.com> Reply-To: shmulik.hen@intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, bonding-announce@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik , Jay Vosburgh , "Noam, Amir" , "Mendelson, Tsippy" , "Noam, Marom" Return-path: To: "Chad N. Tindel" In-Reply-To: <20030925164719.GA45241@calma.pair.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 25 September 2003 07:47 pm, Chad N. Tindel wrote: > > patch 4 - remove dead code, old compatibility stuff and redundant > > checks. > > I'm a bit concerned about doing some of this stuff in the 2.4 > series. That compatibility stuff is there for a reason, and was > set to be removed in 2.6. Perhaps we shouldn't be doing stuff this > drastic until 2.6 because of the risk of breaking users. That's the word I got from Jay in response to the " [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5" thread. >Jay Vosburgh wrote: > I was going to add it on to the end of the clean up set, but > if you want to do it, go ahead. Nobody seems to have objected to > removing the _OLD stuff, which I view as a good thing. -- | Shmulik Hen Advanced Network Services | | Israel Design Center, Jerusalem | | LAN Access Division, Platform Networking | | Intel Communications Group, Intel corp. |