From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] net/sched/: possible cleanups Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:16:28 -0200 Message-ID: <41C3AF1C.2010103@conectiva.com.br> References: <20041215012754.GH12937@stusta.de> <41BF9A95.5050902@conectiva.com.br> <20041218010024.GD21288@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Adrian Bunk In-Reply-To: <20041218010024.GD21288@stusta.de> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:59:49PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > >>Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >>>The patch below contans the following possible cleanups: >>>- make some needlessly global code static >>>- sch_htb.c: #undef HTB_DEBUG >>> >>> >>>diffstat output: >>>include/net/act_api.h | 3 --- >> >>Adrian, may I suggest that you post the networking related patches >>only to netdev? > > > Until now I thought it's never a bad idea to Cc linux-kernel on any > patches. Is there a specific reason why you consider this being a bad > thing (well, bandwith shouldn't be that much of an issue considering how > high-volume linux-kernel is...)? I mentioned that when making the same request to another person one or two days ago: all the networking hackers I know are subscribed to netdev, several of them aren't subscribed to linux-kernel. - Arnaldo