From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] 8021q/vlan: process NETDEV_GOING_DOWN Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:50:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20120530.175020.1714406888633137662.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20120530.162751.80640634568619332.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: eldad@fogrefinery.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Eldad Zack Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 23:47:32 +0200 (CEST) > > On Wed, 30 May 2012, David Miller wrote: >> From: Eldad Zack >> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 21:11:02 +0200 (CEST) >> >> > In case a certain protocol needs to send a "dying gasp" packet, when you >> > administrativly shutdown the port (which is also what happens when you >> > restart the machine). >> >> No in tree users have this requirement, therefore your patch is >> inappropriate. > > You are right in that, that no in tree users have this requirement > (yet), but in the same time it doesn't harm any existing code. > > Don't you agree that it's the right order to do the notifications? It's not an issue that matters upstream, so I simply do not care. When you, or someone else, submits code that needs this facility then we can talk about it. Otherwise it's just a waste of our time.