[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.1808261529350.10197@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 15:30:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
cc: Linux kernel netdev mailing list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: confusing comment, explanation of @IFF_RUNNING in if.h
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 03:20:24PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >
> > > > i ask since, in my testing, when the interface should have been
> > > > up, the attribute file "operstate" for that interface showed
> > > > "unknown", and i wondered how worried i should be about that.
> > >
> > > Hi Robert
> > >
> > > You should probably post the driver for review. A well written
> > > driver should not even need to care about any of this. phylib and
> > > the netdev driver code does all the work. It only gets interesting
> > > when you don't have a PHY, e.g. a stacked device, like bonding, or a
> > > virtual device like tun/tap.
> >
> > i wish, but i'm on contract, and proprietary, and NDA and all that.
> > so i am reduced to crawling through the code, trying to figure out
> > what is misconfigured that is causing all this grief.
>
> I would say proprietary and NDA is causing you all this grief.
>
> There is also the point that if you are not going to contribute the
> code to mainline, why should we help you?
>
> The code is GPL after all, so you can post it.
i'm confident that it will *eventually* be GPLed (i can't imagine
there is any other outcome), but for now, there's nothing i can do.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca/dokuwiki
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
Powered by blists - more mailing lists