From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: [VLAN]: translate IF_OPER_DORMANT to netif_dormant_on() Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:05:43 +0200 Message-ID: References: <44AE2FCC.6020207@trash.net> <20060707143314.67bf07ff@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <200607091049.31628.stefan@loplof.de> <20060709.114827.63031023.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: stefan@loplof.de, shemminger@osdl.org, kaber@trash.net, greearb@candelatech.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:29836 "EHLO khc.piap.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161095AbWGIUFp (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 16:05:45 -0400 To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20060709.114827.63031023.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Sun, 09 Jul 2006 11:48:27 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller writes: >> > Not really. The flag code last major change was to do the dormant >> > stuff that HDLC wanted. >> >> ... and where the maintainer doesn't seem to care to use it now that the >> infrastructure is there. Sigh. This is very different from what I proposed and doesn't fit very well. We've been discussing this to death. > Yes, this is very unfortunate. They made the loudest noise about > wanting the change, yet they aren't even responsible enough to submit > the HDLC patches necessary to make use of it. This was apparently > needed to fix HDLC, so where's the followup? I'm still thinking how to use it safely. Should it be implemented sanely, things would be different. > This is why the HDLC "maintainers" shouldn't be surprised if we flat > out ignore them the next time they complain about anything. You are correct - some time ago, I was really surprised. Now, especially having received that private mail from you - the situation is obvious. I'm a single developer BTW. -- Krzysztof Halasa