[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A2EDEB0.2080006@trash.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:14:08 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bonding-devel@...ts.sf.net,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] BUG: bonding module can only be loaded once
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:
>
>> I'd expect its not the distros, but rather the applicances which might
>> still be using this. I know a vendor I used to work for a couple of
>> years ago just recently made the switch from 2.6.16 to a current kernel,
>> and I'd expect that they are still using this (I can find out tommorrow
>> if you want to know for sure). Vyatta likewise, I guess.
>
> Yes, I'd like to know for sure; thanks.
I'll let you know.
>>> If nobody has any heartburn at dropping support for multiple
>>> bonding instances on old distros, I'm as happy as anybody to remove all
>>> of the multiple load logic from bonding. There's been plenty of time
>>> for transitioning from "multiple load" to sysfs.
>> In my opinion it would need a feature-removal-schedule announcement.
>
> Yah, probably. The multiple load stuff was working fine as of,
> oh, a year or two ago, so I wasn't worried so much about getting rid of
> it. If it's causing problems, though, it's time for it to go (or be
> scheduled to go in the not too distant future). Can't keep driving that
> Ford Pinto forever.
Well, if it has been broken for long enough, maybe we don't need
a feature-removal-schedule warning.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists