From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] tg3: Don't use IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20110328.165311.226778266.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1301315152.3182.19.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1301332822.2716.12.camel@bwh-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: martinez.javier@gmail.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, error27@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org To: bhutchings@solarflare.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:58121 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755592Ab1C1Xxt (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:53:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1301332822.2716.12.camel@bwh-desktop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Ben Hutchings Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:20:22 +0100 > On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 17:46 +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Yes this definitely is not janitor material :) >> >> I just sent the patch because I saw IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM in >> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt. I can resend a patch >> removing the macro in the remaining network cards if the decision is >> to remove IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM. > > It's not my call, but I would support it. FWIW, I support it too.