[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070222084610.GA2399@ff.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:46:10 +0100
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S\. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFT] bridge: eliminate port_check workqueue
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 10:55:55AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> This is what I was suggesting by getting rid of the work queue completely.
...
> --- bridge.orig/net/bridge/br_if.c 2007-02-21 10:22:46.000000000 -0800
> +++ bridge/net/bridge/br_if.c 2007-02-21 10:53:25.000000000 -0800
> @@ -77,26 +77,15 @@
> * Called from work queue to allow for calling functions that
> * might sleep (such as speed check), and to debounce.
> */
What about this comment?
> -static void port_carrier_check(struct work_struct *work)
> +void br_port_carrier_check(struct net_bridge_port *p)
Of course my opinion shouldn't matter here, but it looks
like withdrawing (or giving up) to the older way. So I'm
not excited, but I trust there is a reason for this.
Cheers,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists