* Reasons behind HAVE_TX_TIMEOUT
@ 2006-08-18 10:55 Daniel Drake
2006-08-18 11:31 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Drake @ 2006-08-18 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Netdev list
Hi,
Just curious, why do we have an unconditional #define in netdevice.h for
HAVE_TX_TIMEOUT, and some drivers (e.g. xirc2ps_cs) using it
conditionally as if it might be disabled on some builds?
There are other similar defines in netdevice.h too.
Thanks,
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Reasons behind HAVE_TX_TIMEOUT
2006-08-18 10:55 Reasons behind HAVE_TX_TIMEOUT Daniel Drake
@ 2006-08-18 11:31 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2006-08-18 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Drake; +Cc: Netdev list
Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just curious, why do we have an unconditional #define in netdevice.h for
> HAVE_TX_TIMEOUT, and some drivers (e.g. xirc2ps_cs) using it
> conditionally as if it might be disabled on some builds?
>
> There are other similar defines in netdevice.h too.
Ancient back-compat defines, for 2.2-era, pre-softnet code where
tx_timeout did not exist.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-18 11:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-08-18 10:55 Reasons behind HAVE_TX_TIMEOUT Daniel Drake
2006-08-18 11:31 ` Jeff Garzik
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).