From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: cs89x0 in 2.5 (was Re: eepro100 - 802.1q - mtu size)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:39:12 -0500
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <3E2DDA20.6080003@pobox.com>
References: <20030117145357.GA1139@paradigm.rfc822.org>	 <20030117160840.GR12676@stingr.net> <20030117162818.GA1074@gtf.org>	 <20030117172719.GA31343@codemonkey.org.uk>  <20030117174928.GA8304@gtf.org> <1043115448.13142.6.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
   Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
   netdev@oss.sgi.com, akpm@digeo.com
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1043115448.13142.6.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk>
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Alan wrote:
> I've had no reports I remember about it breaking stuff, and several that
> it fixed stuff. It also seems to match the documentation. Its been in -ac
> for ages

Andrew wrote:
> I've seen no reports either way, and appear to have misplaced the
> datasheet.
> 
> May as well run with it.


Sounds good.  Dave, whatever your preference for patching handling is, 
is all good.  I guess yourself, myself, and akpm are all patch-mongering 
candidates...

	Jeff