From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] netpoll: rework skb transmit queue Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:25:27 -0700 Message-ID: <20061020122527.56292b56@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> References: <20061019171814.281988608@osdl.org> <20061020.001530.35664340.davem@davemloft.net> <20061020081857.743b5eb7@localhost.localdomain> <20061020.122427.55507415.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:52679 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992709AbWJTTZd (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:25:33 -0400 To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20061020.122427.55507415.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Hemminger > Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:18:57 -0700 > > > Netdump is not in the tree, so I can't fix it. Also netdump is pretty > > much superseded by kdump. > > Unless kdump is %100 ready you can be sure vendors will ship netdump > for a little while longer. I think gratuitously breaking netdump is > not the best idea. > > It's not like netdump is some binary blob you can't get the source > to easily. :-) > Sorry, but why should we treat out-of-tree vendor code any differently than out-of-tree other code.